ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Apprenticeships

Nicola Blackwood: What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.

Luke Hall: What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.

Michael Tomlinson: What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.

Sajid Javid: More than 2.4 million apprenticeship starts have been delivered in England since May 2010, but we are now going even further. We are committed to 3 million more over the course of this Parliament and we will ensure that they deliver the skills that employers and the economy need for continued growth.

Nicola Blackwood: We need to fill 1 million more digital jobs by 2020, not to mention finding 1 million more technicians and engineers. In that context, I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree wholeheartedly with the Science and Technology Committee’s first report, published yesterday, which states that cuts to science and innovation spending are a false economy. That spending is an investment, not a state subsidy, and it creates jobs, increases productivity and attracts inward investment. It is essential for science, technology, maths and engineering—STEM—apprentices seeking innovative British employers.

Sajid Javid: I commend my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Science and Technology Committee. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of science, innovation and digital skills. She will know that I made a speech yesterday to Innovate UK’s annual conference, in which I set out new plans to boost science and innovation capabilities.

Luke Hall: There were 740 new apprentices in my constituency last year. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the hundreds of new apprentices, and confirm that he will continue to work to improve not only the quantity but the quality of apprenticeships?

Sajid Javid: I am delighted to congratulate those who have started their apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There has been a 45% increase in apprenticeships since 2010, and we have ensured that they are high-quality paid jobs that last at least 12 months. The whole House should acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) on apprenticeships. He has focused not only on quality but on quantity.

Michael Tomlinson: Cobham, a company in Wimborne in my constituency, takes on between 12 and 18 new apprentices each year, and there have been just under 700 new apprenticeship starts in my constituency in the past 12 months. Businesses are responding to the call for new apprenticeships, but may I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that these apprenticeships really are worth while and high-skilled, so that those who undertake them will really benefit from them?

Sajid Javid: I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend’s constituency has had a 37% increase in apprenticeship starts since 2010. I know that he is very passionate about this, and that he has done much to promote apprenticeships. He is absolutely right to talk about the quality. Higher and degree apprenticeships are widening access to professions, giving young people new, well-respected routes to professional education at some of our best universities.

Iain Wright: The Secretary of State talks a good game, but the fact is that apprenticeship starts have dropped in every single year since 2011-12. The ambition for 3 million new apprenticeship starts is commendable, but would he concede that, in the light of the uncertainty surrounding key policy aspects such as the apprenticeship levy, he is going to struggle to hit that target?

Sajid Javid: First, I must point out that there were more than 492,000 apprenticeship starts in 2014-15, which was up 50,000 on the previous year. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the apprenticeship levy, and I know that he and his Select Committee have done some work on this. I hope that he will acknowledge that that will be a way of ensuring proper funding for apprenticeships, not just for the quality but for the quantity too.

Caroline Flint: In Doncaster, we were absolutely delighted to secure one of the two sites for the national college for high speed rail, but the Government seem to be a bit lukewarm about that now. We want to get on with developing and expanding apprenticeship opportunities in the rail industry, so will the Secretary of State confirm that he still fully backs the site in Doncaster for the college?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to reassure the right hon. Lady that we are committed to the college. It is right that it should be in Doncaster, and it will make a big difference to skills in an important area for our future infrastructure.

Jenny Chapman: What impact does the Secretary of State think cutting the funding for further education colleges by 40% might have on the availability and quality of apprenticeships?

Sajid Javid: I speak as someone who went to an FE college, and no one needs to tell me about their huge importance up and down the country. My priority is to make them stronger, and one way we are going to do that is through local area reviews, which will look at local need.

Chi Onwurah: The video gaming industry contributes more than £3 billion to our economy and supports skilled jobs across the country, including in my constituency. Representatives of the industry tell me that the biggest barrier to growth is a lack of skills, yet there are no employee-led level 4 higher apprenticeships in video gaming, and the NextGen Skills Academy, which was working with employers to develop such an apprenticeship, is said to have lost its funding. We cannot allow the Government’s lack of a digital skills strategy to make it “game over” for Britain, so will the Secretary of State give me a guarantee now that the video gaming industry will get the apprenticeship standard that it needs? Yes or no?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady should be reassured, first, by the fact that I have met representatives of the video gaming industry on a number of occasions to discuss several issues, including skills. She will know that it is important that apprenticeships are employer-led, and it is up to any industry to come forward with proposals. We are already working with more than 1,000 employers on more than 140 apprenticeship programmes that they are helping to set up, and we will work with the video gaming industry, too.

Aerospace Industry

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

Sajid Javid: The Government are working with industry, through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, to remove the barriers to growth, to boost exports and to grow high-value jobs. As part of that work, we are supporting the industry’s investment in technology, competitiveness, productivity, and skills.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating Boeing, which has a significant base in my constituency, on more than doubling its workforce since 2010 and on increasing investment in UK suppliers from £1 billion to £1.4 billion over that period?

Sajid Javid: I certainly will. Crawley is an important area for aerospace: Jeppesen-Boeing has a fantastic flight training and service facility, which includes the largest number of Boeing Dreamliner simulators in the world; and of course the area is also home to Thales and London Gatwick airport. I commend my hon. Friend on the work he has done to promote this industry.

Andrew Stephenson: The last financial quarter saw the highest ever number of aircraft deliveries—it was up 5% on last year’s figure and up 34% on 2010’s. Many aerospace companies across Pendle credit the Government’s Aerospace Growth Partnership as having played a key role in that success, so will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to support that valuable partnership?

Sajid Javid: Yes. I see regular dialogue with the sector councils, such as the Aerospace Growth Partnership, as a vital part of our industrial approach. It is important that the UK continues to become more productive and more competitive, and that has been central to the work of the Aerospace Growth Partnership. I will be meeting many of that industry’s representatives on 3 December in Filton.

Ian Lucas: Further to that question, will the Secretary of State confirm today that the UK Government will continue to fund the Aerospace Growth Partnership through their £1 billion contribution over seven years from 2013 and that he is not considering in any way diluting the funding available for the Aerospace Growth Partnership, particularly by converting it into loans?

Sajid Javid: The Government are absolutely committed to having a strong aerospace sector, and that strength is represented in our commitment to the Aerospace Technology Institute, which is what I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring to.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Discussions move ahead on the UK’s first space port. Does the Minister agree that safety, especially that of the general public, is of primary importance in considering the location of such a space port? Do not a coastal location and extensive airspace unhampered by commercial flying, such as are available at Llanbedr in my constituency, make a crucial contribution to any safety assessment?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that safety is paramount in that sector. We have consulted on a location and we will be talking to our colleagues in the Department for Transport on the outcome.

Laurence Robertson: As the Secretary of State is aware, I have world-leading aerospace companies in my constituency, and they are appreciative of the help the Government are giving to the sector. The biggest problem they still face is the inability to recruit a sufficient number of young people who are considering engineering as a career. What discussions is he having with the Education Secretary about persuading teachers to enlighten pupils as to the opportunities that exist in the sector?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Skills in engineering, not just for this sector, but for many others, are hugely important. With my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, we are working closely to get more employers into schools to talk to schoolchildren about their prospects and the huge opportunities that exist in that industry. There is always more that we can do, and he is absolutely right to raise this issue.

Yvonne Fovargue: Last week, Paul Everitt, the head of the aerospace trade body, ADS, said:
	“Loans for research and development are not appropriate and that kind of approach would put the UK at a disadvantage.”
	May I press the Secretary of State to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) and rule out replacing research grants with loans that will damage Britain’s ability to innovate and compete?

Sajid Javid: I made a speech yesterday at the annual conference of Innovate UK in which I talked about the many ways to help the sectors. Grants, exports and skills are just some of them. One thing this Government will not shy away from is supporting that sector, and supporting innovation.

Manufacturing

John Stevenson: What steps he is taking to support the manufacturing sector.

Sajid Javid: The best way the Government can support manufacturers is by sticking to their long-term economic plan. That includes cutting red tape by a further £10 billion, creating 3 million apprenticeships, lowering corporation tax and devolving budgets and powers to local leaders.

John Stevenson: My constituency of Carlisle in north Cumbria has a strong and healthy manufacturing sector. I helped to promote the industry locally by organising a skills fair, which the Minister for Skills will hopefully attend next year. However, what assistance can the Government give to Cumbria to attract skilled workers not just from Cumbria, but from other areas to help complete large infrastructure projects such as the nuclear new build at Moorside?

Sajid Javid: I commend my hon. Friend on his annual skills fair, which I know is already making a big difference to his constituents. He will be pleased to learn that the advanced manufacturing centre at Carlisle College will begin construction in 2016-17 with growth deal funding. There is no doubt that that will help to boost local skills.

George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that although it is important that employers have a leading role in the development of skills, it is also necessary that skills are transferable? Unless the FE sector is involved in the process of training people and giving them those skills, those skills will not necessarily be transferable.

Sajid Javid: I agree about the importance of transferable skills. Our local area review of the FE sector up and down the country will look very closely at local needs, and at ensuring that skills are transferable.

Tom Pursglove: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect British manufacturing from dumping on our market and maximising the effect of existing international rules?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend knows that, when it comes to trade measures, action has to be taken by the European Union. I know that he has a particular interest in steel, and this is a hugely important issue about dealing with unfair trade. We discussed that at the emergency Council that I attended yesterday in Brussels. One thing that was agreed in the presidency conclusions was that the Commission should prioritise certain cases, and that certainly includes the steel industry.

Alan Brown: Last week in my constituency, the Mahle Group announced the loss of up to 200 highly skilled jobs in the manufacturing sector. The Scottish Government, devolved agencies and local authorities are already involved, but this is a classic example of a European-wide company shipping the process and jobs to another plant in the EU. What support can the UK Government provide, and what can they do both to stop such moves in the future and to encourage long-term investment in technology here?

Sajid Javid: We can continue to make the UK as attractive as possible for manufacturers. What we have seen in the past five years is that output is up for the manufacturing sector, exports are up and jobs are up, and that is because of our long-term economic plan, which is bringing in tax cuts, investing in skills, cutting red tape and boosting exports.

Mike Wood: Will the Secretary of State bring forward details of the package of support that will be put in place to help those workers in the black country affected by the collapse of Caparo, including 54 in my constituency, so that the skills can be retained within the black country engineering sector?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. It is hugely important that workers who are affected by the crisis in the steel industry get whatever help can be provided. We have rolled out plans for support across the country, and we are talking to local leaders to see what more we can do.

Angela Eagle: The official Opposition have had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to the House time after time to get them to stand up for British steelmaking. It is now almost two weeks since the Business Secretary finally went to Brussels to hurry along the European Commission on state aid approval, and yesterday he attended the EU Competitive Council. Although there were welcome pledges for the future, no action was agreed that will make a material difference to our steel industry now. How long must the industry continue to wait for the compensation package promised by the Prime Minister in 2011 to be paid in full? When will the Business Secretary get a grip, stop hiding behind the EU and do more to tackle the root causes of this crisis?

Sajid Javid: It is a shame that the hon. Lady has to take that attitude. It would be better if she were a lot more constructive on this issue. I could point out that under 13 years of Labour we saw a 45% collapse in steel production and jobs halved—cut by more than 10,000—because of her Government’s policies. This Government are taking the issue seriously. This Government called for, and were granted, an emergency Council meeting at which we agreed on a number of actions. They will be published today and there will be further information in my written statement, which the hon. Lady can read.

Pub Tenants

Louise Haigh: What progress he has made on introducing a market rent only option for pub tenants.

Anna Soubry: The Government published a consultation on the introduction of the market rent only option on 29 October. Our proposals have been drafted to strike a fair balance between pub companies and tenants, and we look forward to hearing views from across the industry during the consultation period.

Louise Haigh: The draft pubs code released by the Minister in late October was supposed to signal the end of the unfair practice of forcing tied tenants to buy their beer only from pubcos. In fact, the code seems to give tenants the freedom to buy on the open market only in exceptional circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the code will mean in practice that very few tenants will be free from the pubco profiteers?

Anna Soubry: No, I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the consultation at all. The clue is in the name: this is a consultation. We are therefore, quite rightly, publishing our proposals, and I look forward to representations from everybody, including the hon. Lady.

Michael Fabricant: I join the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and say that a number of pubs have closed in my constituency and those of my colleagues simply because property prices and rents are too high? I recognise that we need to keep the pubcos in business too, or we will not help anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that exceptional circumstances would include any situation in which a pub would have to close because the rent was too high?

Anna Soubry: This is all very useful and helpful, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I look forward to him putting his views into the consultation; a mix of views is critical to what I emphasise again is a consultation.

Greg Mulholland: Tenants’ groups and the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign have contacted me to say that they believe that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has acted in bad faith, and that the draft code of practice for pubs does not even abide by the legislation and entirely negates the market rent only option. They will be asking the Minister tomorrow to withdraw the code, which is entirely unacceptable, and engage with them to come up with something that accords with the will of the House as it was expressed last November.

Anna Soubry: I am very disappointed to hear all that. Let me make it clear that I have stood up against planned closures of public houses in my constituency and railed against companies such as Greene King. [Interruption.] Yes, I have, and I have fought for other pubs. Hon. Members can look on my website for details. That is not the point. It is really important that we strike the right balance on this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the parallel rent assessment provision, which I know he has not always been in favour of—I think he changed his mind at the last moment—is not in the code.

Greg Mulholland: You don’t know what you are talking about, Anna.

Anna Soubry: Shouting from a sedentary position does not help at all. The new style of politics has not quite reached the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lords have made their concerns very clear to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and as a result of my conversations with her, that particular proposal will go into the second part of the consultation.

Bill Esterson: The Minister’s so-called consultation scrapped the promised parallel rent assessment, so I am pleased to hear that she has put that back in. Will she do the same with all the provisions that were offered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe in the other House on 28 January and make sure that the vast majority of pub tenants are offered a fair deal when it comes to the market rent-only option? If she does not, she will be acting in bad faith and she will have betrayed the trust of thousands of pub tenants up and down the country.

Anna Soubry: As I keep saying, it is a consultation so we will listen to everybody. It is important that we strike the balance fairly between both sides of the argument, and that we understand and accept that there has been a great deal of movement to the betterment of tenants over the past few years. We must recognise that. I know from my own constituency work that pub companies such as Punch and Greene King have hugely changed their views to the benefit of tenants, and that must be welcomed.

EU Reform

Neil Carmichael: What his priorities are for business in the Government’s negotiations for reform of the EU.

Sajid Javid: We must empower businesses to compete more effectively by accelerating the integration of the single market, especially in the services, digital and energy sectors. We will do this by cutting red tape for business and pushing for more ambitious free trade agreements between the EU and the rest of the world.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best interests of business will be served by our being a member of a reformed and reforming European Union? That extends to our remaining in the single market. From my right hon. Friend’s vantage point as President of the Board of Trade, it is extraordinarily useful that the European Union can negotiate such good strong deals for us globally.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the need for EU reform, but many businesses believe that the costs of membership currently outweigh the benefits. As the Prime Minister said, in order for us to get the best deal, we must have the referendum and let the British people decide.

Conor McGinn: Last week a group of senior business figures in the north-west said it was vital for jobs in our region that Britain stays in the European Union. Will the Government heed what they say and perhaps make it a priority in the negotiations that the £800 million of EU structural funds given to the north-West will continue?

Sajid Javid: The one thing that businesses agree on is the need for reform. They are united in that, whichever business group one speaks to. If we can get those reforms, which I am confident about—and the Prime Minister has talked more about them this morning—we will see an even bigger boost to jobs and opportunities in Britain.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State remind the House of the trade deficit that we have with the EU, and of the fact that the unreformed EU is clearly not working for British business?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the current deficit. That is why one of the reforms that we want is a deeper and broader single market which includes digital and professional services, which Britain is very good at, alongside manufacturing, so that we can do more trade.

Hannah Bardell: Writing in The Telegraph, the Prime Minister’s potential successor as leader of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said that the Prime Minister was right
	“to unsheathe a section of the blade that might soon be used to cut the rope and set Britain free”
	from the EU. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the likely impact on Scottish business of Britain turning its back on its European trading partners, and does he think that is appropriate language from a man of such standing?

Sajid Javid: I agree that we need reform. All Members on the Government Benches agree on the need to fight for that reform, which means cutting red tape and creating a deeper single market, more ambitious free trade agreements and fairness between the euro-ins and outs. I hope the hon. Lady will join us in fighting for that reform.

Hannah Bardell: A poll of Scottish business last month found that 82% of small and medium-sized businesses support the UK remaining in the EU. I dare say that those businesses value their ability to export more than £12.9 billion-worth of goods and services throughout the EU, creating wealth and jobs at home. Have this Government not lost all control of an exit agenda that was started only to appease right-wing Eurosceptic Back Benchers and may very well result in Scotland being dragged into delusional imperial isolation against its will?

Sajid Javid: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, which I omitted to do earlier. She will know that one of the most important sectors in Scotland is the financial services industry, whether asset management or banking. That is one area where we could have deeper single market and do more trade with the rest of the European Union. If she supports that cause, then she will support our efforts to reform the EU.

Overseas Students: India

Bob Blackman: What estimate he has made of the number of students from India applying to study in the UK in each of the past three years.

Jo Johnson: While overall international student numbers are up year on year, there were 16,000 Indian students in 2015—a decline of 13% over the past three years. However, it is worth stressing that India remains our second largest such market.

Bob Blackman: The fact is that the numbers of students choosing to come here has declined by 53% in the past four years. There is clear concern that we need to do something about this so that Britain, rather than the United States or elsewhere, becomes the choice for Indians to study. What measures can my hon. Friend take on visas, changing times for study and the ability of students to work here?

Jo Johnson: It is important that we clear up misperceptions in the Indian market about the openness of our offer. We are open to international students. There is no cap on the number of international students who can come and study here, or on the number who can come and stay here after they finish studying, provided that they get a graduate job. We want to make more Indian students feel welcome here, and that is what we will be doing during the visit of Prime Minister Modi later this week.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister says that we want to make more Indian students feel welcome here, but it is clear from the figures that they feel much more welcome in America, Canada and Australia—our competitor countries. Will this not have a substantial impact on Britain’s trade relations with India and other countries such as Pakistan where the figures have fallen, and what is he going to do about it?

Jo Johnson: Overall international student numbers are up year on year. We have a competitive offer for international students. We have a world-class higher education sector, with 38 out of the world’s top 100 universities. It is not surprising that international students from all over the world want to come and study at our great universities.

Tristram Hunt: I alert the House to my interest in the register. When is the Minister’s Department going to show some leadership and get the Home Office to take students out of the migration figures? This Government are undermining the global reach of our universities, and America, Canada and Australia are benefiting.

Jo Johnson: We have a competitive offer, as underlined by the fact that international student numbers are up by 3% to 4% year on year. We work closely together to ensure that our international offer is competitive. It remains competitive and will continue to be so. There is no cap on the number of international students coming to this country and no limit to the number who can go on to work in graduate jobs with a sponsored employer.

British Exports

Andrew Griffiths: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken by UK Trade & Investment to encourage British exports.

George Freeman: I am delighted to be able to report that UKTI has increased its effectiveness year on year since 2010. We have doubled the number of UK companies assisted on exports from 27,000 in 2010 to 55,000. This is working. We have secured an extra £60 billion in additional sales and a rise in exports of 9% for existing exporters and 46% for new exporters. I am also delighted that the life sciences are doing their bit. I recently signed a £2 billion trade deal with China, and there will be more announcements on Thursday with the Indian state visit.

Andrew Griffiths: Britain brews the best beer in the world, and I know that the Minister wants to get our brewers exporting, but sadly they tell me that the performance of UKTI to date shows that it could not organise a party in a brewery. Will he sit down with UKTI and do all he can to help medium and family-sized brewers export across the world?

George Freeman: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion for British beer and Burton brewers? He makes a very important point and I would be delighted to convene that meeting with UKTI. We need to roll out the barrel for British beer and I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have set out an ambitious food and agri-tech export plan, to ensure that the whole world experiences the benefits of British beer and food.

Margaret Ritchie: The Northern Ireland agri-food industry depends on exports. With the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in China this week, what further steps will the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills take in accessing new market opportunities for British and Northern Ireland exports?

George Freeman: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Northern Ireland sector is a crucial part of the UK sector, and that is why we have set up the exports implementation taskforce. We are absolutely dealing with the points she has raised about Northern Ireland.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is absolutely right: small and medium-sized businesses are still not getting the traction they need from UKTI. Will the Minister do everything possible to help chambers of commerce to engage with one another so that we can hit our £1 trillion of exports?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Lord Maude is overseeing an important review of the way in which UKTI works, to make sure that we are developing a sector focus and a strategic market focus around the world. We are maintaining momentum—and we will improve on it in the years ahead—in order to hit that ambitious target.

Kevin Brennan: The deficit for which this Department is responsible is the trade deficit. The current account measures our ability to pay our way in the world and its deficit recently reached its highest point since the second world war. It is still at 3.6% of GDP. How on earth will refusing to have an industrial strategy help British exporters overcome the failure of this Government’s trade policy?

George Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has picked the wrong Minister to talk about industrial strategy, seeing as I lead one of our most successful ones on life sciences. The Secretary of State’s speech yesterday made very clear our commitment to innovation, and this Department, though our investment in science and innovation, is leading in building a long-term economic plan for the science, industries and innovation of tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman can cite trade balance figures all he likes, but the truth is that we are in a global economy and we cannot control the rate at which other economies grow around the world.

Migrant Workers

Matt Warman: What steps he is taking to prevent businesses exploiting migrant workers.

Nicholas Boles: We are creating a director of labour market enforcement. This will strengthen our ability to find and stop exploitative employers, such as the 41 businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have had their gangmasters’ licences refused or revoked.

Matt Warman: As my hon. Friend knows, Lincolnshire produces some of the finest food in the country, but some of its workers are affected by the issues under discussion. Does he agree that it should be as much down to supermarkets and consumers to make sure that everyone knows that the food we eat is produced in humane conditions?

Nicholas Boles: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that supermarkets and other traders are as transparent as possible about the work they have done to ensure that nowhere in their supply chain is there any kind of slavery or other kind of labour exploitation. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 specifically requires them to make a statement of that kind.

Further Education: Sussex

Tim Loughton: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of further education provision and funding in Sussex.

Nicholas Boles: An area review—the Sussex coast review of post-16 education and training—is taking place and it will recommend high quality, sustainable and financially viable further education and sixth-form colleges through a reformed structure.

Tim Loughton: Two FE colleges in my constituency—Worthing college and Northbrook college—are part of that review. They are good and improving colleges, providing valuable apprenticeships, training and education. They have already taken large cuts—there is much uneconomic provision—so can the Minister assure me that the area reviews are not just a cover for further, unrealistic cuts that will threaten their viability altogether? Why are sixth forms in schools not included in those reviews?

Nicholas Boles: I am glad to have an opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend. Regional school commissioners are absolutely required to be part of the area reviews. Those in some parts of the country have perhaps been surprised by that requirement, so I am happy to reassert it: they are employed by the Department for Education and are required to be part of those area reviews. The point of area reviews is to have strong, sustainable FE and sixth-form colleges that can take advantage of growing revenue streams such as the funding for apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships

Peter Aldous: What proportion of businesses in England employ an apprentice.

Nicholas Boles: I am sorry to detain you yet further, Mr Speaker.
	Data from the 2014 UK Commission for Employment and Skills employer perspectives survey showed that, in England, about 15% of establishments have offered formal apprenticeships. When we introduce the apprenticeship levy in 2017, we expect that percentage to increase significantly.

Mr Speaker: Quite why the Minister supposes that I find it anything other than joyous to sample his mellifluous tones I frankly cannot fathom. I am not being detained by anybody; my duty is to be in the Chamber, and I shall always be here.

Peter Aldous: The Apprenticeships Suffolk Business Service has been formed by the chamber of commerce and the county council, and it is already delivering many more apprenticeships. Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that businesses themselves play the major role in increasing the number and quality of apprenticeships?

Nicholas Boles: I am really delighted that Suffolk authorities and the chamber of commerce have created that service. A number of authorities around the country have created similar things—apprenticeship hubs and the like—and such interventions by local authorities are incredibly worth while. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, ultimately, we want employers to take control of this: we want employers to develop standards, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned earlier, to control the funding and to ensure that more people get the opportunity of an apprenticeship.

Rob Marris: Can the Minister tell me three specific things that the Government are doing to encourage apprenticeships in construction, where there is a huge shortage?

Nicholas Boles: I am absolutely delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman three specific things. First, we are introducing an apprenticeship levy. I would have thought that he might have taken the time to welcome it, because it will require larger employers to make a substantial investment in apprenticeships. Secondly, we have reformed the Construction Leadership Council under new leadership and charged it with taking a very active role in promoting apprenticeships in the sector. Thirdly, I regularly meet the new, very focused leadership team of the Construction Industry Training Board, and I have charged it with focusing on apprenticeships as the key method of delivering high-quality training and further skills.

Road Haulage Industry: Driver Shortage

Chris Heaton-Harris: What steps he is taking to address the shortage of drivers in the road haulage industry.

Nicholas Boles: Mr Speaker, you can see why I was a little bit nervous about popping up again.
	We are working closely with a group of leading sector employers to support the development of a new apprenticeship standard for heavy goods vehicle drivers. The standard will equip apprentices with the driving skills the road haulage industry needs.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Could my hon. Friend name five—no, I will not go there.
	Will my hon. Friend work with employers in the road haulage industry to try to incentivise driving as a career choice for young people?

Nicholas Boles: Yes, I absolutely will. There is a desperate need for more skilled drivers. It is actually a great opportunity for people who are in relatively low-skilled employment. We had a very interesting discussion in the Social Justice Cabinet Committee recently about this being an opportunity, as a very good kind of first employment, for ex-offenders. A Defence Minister has mentioned that it is a great opportunity for people leaving the forces. We need to do more on all sides in the Government.

David Simpson: What more can the Government do to help haulage companies with the exorbitant fees of £3,500 that are charged to train for HGV licences?

Nicholas Boles: There is a convention, which we have stuck to for very good reasons, that we do not ask the taxpayer to pay for licences to practise a particular profession. We believe that doing so should be directly in the interests of both the employer and the employee who will benefit from having the licence. However, we are encouraging those companies to develop, and they are working on developing, an apprenticeship standard to include the whole of the rest of the training, which will of course receive substantial support from the taxpayer and from the apprenticeship levy.

Business Finance

Geoffrey Robinson: When he plans to bring forward proposals to improve access to finance for (a) the smallest businesses and (b) people who are self-employed.

Anna Soubry: According to the latest SME Finance Monitor survey, net lending to smaller businesses has recovered substantially since 2014 and businesses are increasingly finding that banks are more willing to lend. In relation to Government assistance, we have provided finance help to small businesses—for example, through 32,800 start-up loans worth £176 million. Turning to the self-employed, Julie Deane, the founder of the Cambridge Satchel Company, is currently carrying out an independent review of self-employment, and I am sure we will welcome her recommendations. We of course need to do more to make sure that everybody knows about the brilliance of the financial tech sector.

Geoffrey Robinson: I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. On small businesses, she will be aware that the Secretary of State visited the west midlands last Friday, accompanied by the Coventry and Warwickshire growth hub. He visited a small company near his constituency, Ricor Ltd—a company that is indicative of why the Government should maintain their positive support for business. Will she assure me, and the business hubs that provide such a good link with those businesses, that that will be the case?

Anna Soubry: I understand from the Secretary of State that that is an excellent company. I agree that these things are really important. It is also incredibly important that we encourage small businesses to consider alternative sources of funding. That is why the FinTech sector is doing so well. We need to get out information about crowdfunding, peer-to-peer, angels and so on, especially at a local level.

Kevin Foster: The Minister will be aware that in my constituency, many people go into self-employment and start a small business as one of their first steps into employment. That means that they are unlikely to be familiar with the system. What steps will she take to ensure that people are aware of the options open to them, particularly once the review of self-employment funding finance is completed?

Anna Soubry: Of course, we offer people information. The British Business Bank puts together the various funds that are available to small businesses. One reason why I am in favour of the great devolution deals is that they take that sort of activity right down to the local level. The coming together of local authorities, businesses and local enterprise partnerships enables us to get this sort of information out. The Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce also have a huge role to play, because they do excellent work, often at a local level.

EU Membership

Julie Elliott: What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary on the effect on businesses of the UK’s membership of the EU.

Sajid Javid: I work closely with the Foreign Secretary, particularly through the exports taskforce, which I chair, to deliver growth for British business. UK businesses send 45% of their exports to the EU and benefit from the single market. The reforms that we are pursuing are good for the EU, good for the UK and good for British business.

Julie Elliott: Some 160,000 jobs in the north-east rely on trade with the EU. We are the only region in the country consistently to deliver a trade surplus. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents, many of whom are understandably concerned about what an isolated Britain on the fringes of Europe might mean for their jobs and livelihoods? Will he vote to stay in the EU and stand up for British jobs?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has some excellent manufacturers and other companies in her constituency, including Nissan, which recently announced a huge investment. What business wants in respect of the EU is more certainty and reform, so it welcomes the reforms that we are fighting for, and the certainty that the referendum will bring.

David Nuttall: One of the biggest impacts on UK businesses comes from the EU social chapter. As recently as 2010, the Conservative manifesto said that we would “negotiate the return” of power over “employment legislation”. Is that still going to happen, or have we gone backwards in our ambition?

Sajid Javid: We have set out our priorities in respect of making the whole EU, not just Britain, more competitive. They include cutting red tape and having more free trade agreements. We have set out those priorities in detail. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say and will reflect on it.

Topical Questions

Nigel Mills: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: My first and foremost priority in recent weeks has been to do what I can to help the steel industry. I pushed for and was granted an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers, which took place in Brussels yesterday and led to a number of actions being agreed. I reiterate our support for the people in Redcar, Scunthorpe, Lanarkshire and elsewhere who have lost their jobs recently. This is an extremely difficult time for all who are affected. I say to them: we are resolutely on your side.

Nigel Mills: Many businesses in the construction sector in my constituency are still suffering from excessive levels of retention being taken by prime contractors. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage the phasing out of retention before the 2025 deadline?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an important point that a number of people have made to me recently. Cash retention is a common practice that can provide insurance for customers against poor workmanship. However, the scope for misuse is clear. That is why the Government have commissioned a review of the practice. We will see what action we can take.

Gordon Marsden: Further education has already been weakened by five years of Government funding cuts, so why are Ministers having hasty, half-cocked area reviews that threaten forced course and college closures? Figures released by the Library today suggest that the Chancellor is demanding at least £1.6 billion in FE cuts, and a new Green Paper proposes free-for-all providers that would threaten colleges’ higher education teaching. Are Ministers doing anything to stop FE being the spending review’s whipping boy?

Sajid Javid: We have discussed this issue previously. As I have said, we want an even stronger FE sector that provides even more opportunities across the country, and local area reviews are essential for that. We need to understand local needs much more carefully, and local reviews will achieve that. We will then be able to offer more opportunities.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Many English Members of the House, while unable to recall individual results in the tournament, were extremely proud that England hosted the rugby world cup this year. What does my right hon. Friend estimate is the positive economic impact of hosting the rugby world cup?

Anna Soubry: Independent consultants—EY, the old Ernst & Young—estimated pre-tournament that the rugby world cup would attract more than 460,000 international visitors to England and Wales, which is the highest ever number for a world cup. That, apparently, would add up to £1 billion to the United Kingdom’s GDP, which is excellent, and we will know whether that figure was accurate sometime in May, when the impact statement has been done. By way of an anecdote, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), the birthplace of this great game, says that one business in his constituency reported a 250% increase in turnover, purely as a result of this great tournament.

Diana R. Johnson: Wyke sixth-form college in Hull does a vital job for young people in a city that has struggled with educational attainment, and the FE colleges and other post-16 provision in Hull are deemed to be either good or outstanding. Will the Minister guarantee that that vital provision in developing the skills agenda in the city will be protected, and not decimated by the cuts that his Government are likely to propose?

Nicholas Boles: We all share a sense of the importance of sixth-form and further education colleges to all our communities, and we all rely on and value those institutions. We need them to be stronger, however, and the area reviews are about enabling those institutions to form arrangements with each other that strengthen them for the future. This will be of less relevance for sixth-form colleges, but for further education colleges, the funding going into apprenticeship training is growing fast. Those colleges have a great opportunity to win a lot of that funding for the future.

Bob Blackman: I wish a happy Diwali to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone celebrating it. Given Narendra Modi’s visit this week, will my right hon. Friend describe the various trade, educational and bilateral arrangements that will be announced, and say what Narendra Modi is looking forward to seeing during this visit?

Sajid Javid: I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years to boost ties between India and Great Britain. A number of commercial announcements will be made during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. Those will demonstrate the full breadth of the relationship between us and India, and will cover healthcare, energy, financial services and creative industries. That will help to boost both of our economies. Later next month, I will lead a trade mission to boost education exports alongside the Minister for Universities and Science.

Mr Speaker: Louise Haigh is not here. I call Bridget Phillipson.

Bridget Phillipson: In his Green Paper, the Minister says that he wants to improve access to higher education for the most disadvantaged students. Will he match that rhetoric with action and protect the student opportunity fund, which does so much to support young people from across the country in realising their full potential?

Jo Johnson: Yes, indeed. In the Green Paper, we set out various proposals on which we want to consult with the sector. I have also announced the creation of a social mobility taskforce, which is to report back to me by Christmas with proposals on how to meet the Prime Minister’s ambitious target of doubling the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who attend university by 2020.

Marcus Fysh: The Government are making large infrastructure investments in my area, through projects such as the dualling of the A303 and Hinkley Point. I am trying to encourage large-scale inward investment. How can my hon. Friend help us to build on local skills and research and development?

Nicholas Boles: Through our growth deal with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership, we have invested £6.5 million in the Hinkley Point training agency. Yeovil College and its partners can bid for that funding to build capacity and deliver skills training for Hinkley Point. The LEP is leading work with partners, including Yeovil College, to develop an action plan to deliver the construction skills that the area will need.

Alex Cunningham: The Minister appears to be a little shy about telling us exactly when the compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries such as steel is likely to be introduced, or whether it will be ahead of the original planned date. While she is thinking about that, will she also give thought to other industries, such as chemicals, ceramics, paper and cement, with a view to providing sufficient compensation for them? They face greater competition, uniquely, because of the high cost of additional UK Government energy and climate change electricity taxes.

Anna Soubry: At yesterday’s excellent meeting held by the Secretary of State in Brussels, the presidency agreed that this matter should be prioritised. We are now waiting for the European Union to sign off on it, and we are told that it will be in a matter of weeks. We are doing everything we can to advance that.

Mr Speaker: Simon Hart. Not here.

Rishi Sunak: I welcome the Government’s ambition for 3 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament—three times the number under the last Labour Administration. As the numbers rise, will the Minister ensure that those apprenticeships provide the high-quality skills that our young people deserve and our employers demand?

Nicholas Boles: Absolutely. There is no point having 3 million apprenticeships unless they are high quality and add to the skills of the people who take them up. That is why we are introducing new trailblazer standards, developed by employers: apprenticeships have to last at least a year and involve 20% formal off-the-job training. We are also introducing higher-level and degree apprenticeships.

Valerie Vaz: I was at Caparo Atlas Fastenings in my constituency talking to the administrators last Friday. I am sure that the whole House will send their condolences to the Paul family. Will the Minister say what specific steps can be taken to preserve those skilled jobs for the future, given that infrastructure projects are coming up in the west midlands?

Anna Soubry: Of course we always listen to what the local enterprise partnerships are asking us to do, if they need any additional support. As the hon. Lady knows, in relation to steelworkers who have unfortunately been made redundant—notably at Redcar, but with more fears for Scunthorpe and Rotherham—we have put in substantial amounts of public money, specifically to ensure that those highly skilled workers get all the opportunities they need to retrain. The amount for Redcar is £16.5 million, and for Scunthorpe it will start at £3 million. We have already started to work with Rotherham and, if we get more bad news, money will be available for that area.

Nigel Huddleston: The issue of switching suppliers is particularly acute in the mobile phone space, where just 6% of users change contracts each year, and many people find it difficult to find the best deals. What plans do the Government have to improve switching and price transparency in the mobile sector?

Nicholas Boles: The Government are determined to encourage more consumers to vote with their feet in key markets such as energy, banking and mobile phones. We are currently conducting a call for evidence on a set of six switching principles that will make the process quicker and easier for consumers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy—for digital everything—and I will shortly write to the chief executives of mobile telephone companies to encourage them to co-operate fully with those new principles.

Adrian Bailey: The Caparo group, which has its headquarters in my constituency and is currently in administration, provides high-quality steel products to the supply chains for both the motor industry and civil aviation. Those products are difficult to source from elsewhere. What will the Minister do to ensure that those companies survive?

Anna Soubry: May I first apologise, because I should have added my condolences to the Paul family on their loss yesterday? The difficulties in Caparo are not as simple as those involved in the decline in the steel industry, with which we are all familiar. One of the difficulties at the Hartlepool plant, for example, was the decline in oil and gas. We will work with the LEPs—we will work with anyone—to make sure that workers who need extra skills to transfer into new jobs have that opportunity.

Jo Churchill: What steps will the Minister take to promote reform of the EU regulations specifically on biotechnology and life science?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. I was yesterday in Brussels with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to convene a summit with European leaders on biosciences. We are pushing for an enlightened regulatory framework to support EU and UK leadership in the fields of food, medicine and energy for global benefit.

John Pugh: May I ask the Minister why his Department is keeping further education and skills out of the Liverpool city region deal? They are crucial to the Liverpool city region.

Nicholas Boles: I am not directly responsible for city deals, but there are many such deals around the country that have specifically majored on the inclusion of skills—Manchester and elsewhere. I am happy to look into it, but I am sure it was not because we resisted. Frankly, we are very keen for local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to take a bigger role.

Martin Vickers: May I refer the Minister back to his earlier answer regarding the shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers? Only last Saturday, my surgery was attended by someone who wanted to establish themselves as a trainer for HGV drivers. Will my hon. Friend look again at the support that such people receive, as it could go a long way to more drivers becoming available?

Nicholas Boles: When there is an apprenticeship standard for HGV drivers, the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be able to offer training to employers for that apprenticeship, and to secure the funding that the Government will provide through the apprenticeship levy and other public resources.

David Lammy: I welcome the decision the Department has made on name-blind applications to university, but the Minister will know that this does little to deal with prejudices of class and race. Postcode, school and being first in the family to go to university are just as important. What progress is being made on contextual data?

Jo Johnson: It is a priority for the Government to increase the proportion of disadvantaged people going to university. We have brought forward proposals for UCAS to look at, so that for the 2017 admission cycle, we can introduce name-blind applications—an important step to ensuring that application and admission to university is on the basis of merit.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: A dazzling array of eager beavers on both sides of the House. I call Mr Robert Jenrick.

Robert Jenrick: For British businesses operating in highly regulated sectors such as the legal sector, India remains an incredibly restricted market to break into—in many respects, even more so than China. Will the Secretary of State use this week’s visit as a catalyst to move forward long-standing discussions on the service sector?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Britain and India do a lot of trade together, and there is a lot more we can do if we put our minds to it. These are exactly the kinds of issues we look forward to raising this week.

Anna Turley: As has been well documented in this House, Ministers promised £80 million for retraining and economic development in Redcar. We know now that only £30 million of that will be saved for pension payments. Less than £10 million has been paid out already, and more than 90% of people have received their payments. Will the Minister promise the people of Redcar that what is not spent on redundancies and final salaries will stay in the region and go to the people of Redcar, not be sucked back up to the Treasury?

Anna Soubry: I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady, who rightly fights very hard for her constituents, that only today I met again with my officials and said that I wanted the remaining money to go in tranches to Redcar, so that people there can determine how it will be spent for the benefit of her constituents.

Amanda Milling: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Jack Hammond and Ashley Churchman, two inspiring apprentices who addressed a joint Education and Business, Innovation and Skills Committee seminar last week? Does he agree that apprentices sharing their experiences in this way can demonstrate to businesses the real value of employing apprentices?

Nicholas Boles: I certainly would like to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents. As she says, there are no better advocates for apprenticeships than those who have completed them—not a bunch of middle-aged people like us—who can go to their schools and preach the virtues of apprenticeships.

Stewart McDonald: In the Scottish Government’s programme earlier this year, the First Minister announced three new innovation centres for Scotland across Europe, one of which will be based here, in the great European capital city of London. How do the Government plan to support that centre, to ensure that Scottish businesses compete on the world stage?

Jo Johnson: We continue to support innovation across the UK. I was pleased to be in Glasgow 10 days ago, laying the turf for a new innovation centre, the Imaging Centre of Excellence, in the University of Glasgow. Scotland punches above its weight with regard to research funding—it has an 11% share of it, whereas it has an 8% share of the population—and I hope it continues to do so.

Europe: Renegotiation

David Lidington: With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s EU renegotiation.
	As the House knows, the Government were elected with a mandate to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU, ahead of an in/out referendum to be held by the end of 2017, and since July, technical talks have taken place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. Today, the Prime Minister has written to the President of the European Council to set out the changes we want, and we have laid a written ministerial statement, including a copy of that letter, hard copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
	I would now like to offer the House further detail. The Prime Minister’s speech at Bloomberg three years ago set out a vision for the future of the EU. Three years on, his central argument remains more persuasive than ever: the EU needs to change. Increasingly, others, too, have recognised this. Only a fortnight ago, Chancellor Merkel said that British concerns were German concerns as well. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s letter today is not to describe the precise means, including the detailed legal amendments, for effecting our reforms—that is a matter for the renegotiation itself; what matters to us is finding solutions. The agreement must be legally binding and irreversible and, where necessary, have force in the treaties.
	We are seeking reform in four main areas. The first is economic governance. Measures that the eurozone countries need to take to secure the long-term future of their currency will affect all EU members. These are real concerns, as demonstrated by the proposal we saw off this summer to bail out Greece using contributions from non-euro members. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, any long-term solution should be underpinned by certain principles and should include a safeguard mechanism to ensure that these principles are respected and enforced. The principles should include recognition that the EU has more than one currency; that there should be no discrimination or disadvantage for any business on the basis of currency; that taxpayers in non-euro countries should never be financially liable for supporting eurozone members; that any changes the eurozone needs to make, such as the creation of a banking union, should never be compulsory for non-euro countries; that financial stability and supervision should be a key area of competence for national institutions, such as the Bank of England, for non-euro members, just as those matters have become a key area of competence for eurozone institutions, such as the European Central Bank; and that any issues affecting all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states.
	Secondly, we want an even more determined focus on improving Europe’s competitiveness. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in Europe is still too high. Unless Europe can raise its game on competitiveness, the challenges we all face from global competition and digital technology will pose a serious risk that the next generation of Europeans will not be able to afford the living standards, social protections or public services that our citizens take for granted. We therefore welcome the European Commission’s focus on competitiveness.
	The number of legislative proposals has been cut by 80%, while more regulatory proposals have been taken off the table this year than ever before. Progress has been made towards a single digital market and a capital markets union, as well as in last month’s Commission trade strategy. But we need to go further. The burden from existing regulation remains too high. Just as we have secured the first-ever real-terms cut in the EU budget, so we should set a target to cut the total burden on business. This should be part of a clear strategic commitment that brings forward all the various proposals, promises and agreements on European competitiveness.
	Thirdly, we come to sovereignty. As the Prime Minister said at Bloomberg and as we have stressed many times since, too many people in the UK, and in other member states too, feel that the EU is something done to them. In his letter, my right hon. Friend makes three proposals to address this. First, we want to end the United Kingdom’s obligation to work towards an ever closer union as set out in the treaties. For many British people, this simply reinforces the sense of being dragged against our will towards a political union. Secondly, we want to enable national Parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation, building on the arrangements already in the treaties. Thirdly, we want to see the EU’s commitment to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that. We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. As the Dutch have said, the ambition should be “Europe where necessary, but national where possible.”
	Fourthly, I want to turn to the issue of welfare and immigration. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech last November, we believe in an open economy, which includes the principle of free movement to work, and I am proud that people from every country can find their community here in the United Kingdom. But the issue is one of scale and of speed. The pressure that the current level of inward migration puts upon our public services is too great, and also has a profound effect on those member states whose most highly qualified citizens have emigrated.
	The Prime Minister’s letter again sets out our proposals to address this. We need to ensure that where new countries are admitted to the EU, free movement will not apply until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states. We need to crack down on all abuse of free movement. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages, and stronger powers to deport criminals to stop them coming back and to prevent them from entering in the first place. It also includes dealing with the situation whereby it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than for a British citizen to do the same.
	We must also reduce the pull factor drawing migrants to the UK to take low-skilled jobs, expecting their salary to be subsidised by the state from day one. We have proposed that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we do need to secure arrangements that deliver on our commitments to fair and controlled migration.
	Let me say something briefly about the next steps. There will now be a process of formal negotiation with the European institutions and with all 27 European partners, leading to substantive discussion at the December European Council. The Prime Minister’s aim is to conclude an agreement at the earliest opportunity, but his priority is to ensure that the substance is right. It is progress on the substance in this renegotiation that will determine the timing of the referendum itself.
	The Government fully recognise the close interest from Members on all sides of the House. We cannot provide a running commentary on an ongoing negotiation, but we will continue to engage fully with the wide range of parliamentary inquiries, now numbering, I believe, 12 across both Houses of Parliament, into the renegotiation. Documents will be submitted for scrutiny in line with normal practices, and the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I will continue to appear regularly before the relevant Select Committees. Of course, the European Union Referendum Bill will return to the House before long.
	The Prime Minister has said and he repeated this morning that should his concerns fall on deaf ears, he rules nothing out, but he also believes that meaningful reform in the areas that I have described would benefit our economic and our national security, provide a fresh settlement for the UK’s membership of the European Union, and offer a basis on which to campaign to keep the United Kingdom as a member of a reformed European Union—and it is that which remains the Government’s objective. I commend the statement to the House.

Pat McFadden: I thank the Minister for updating the House, and for giving me advance sight of his statement.
	The decision on whether or not the United Kingdom will remain a member of the European Union is the biggest decision that the country will make for a generation. Labour Members are clear about the fact that Britain is a more powerful, prosperous and secure country as a result of its membership of the EU, and we want to see it play a full role in shaping a reformed and better Europe that deepens its single market in areas such as digital and services, offers more hope and jobs to its young people, uses its collective strength in trade with the rest of the world, and stands together to combat the urgent security problems that we face. We do not stand for the nationalism that says that we would be better off out, or for a Brexit that would see Britain weaker in power and influence, and diminished in the eyes of the world.
	In his speech this morning and in the letter to the President of the European Council, the Prime Minister set out his negotiating agenda. As we have already heard in comments from his own Back Benchers, the problem that the Prime Minister faces—and, in fact, the reason he has been so reluctant to put his position down on paper until now—is that there is nothing he can renegotiate that will satisfy the large number of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him who want to take Britain out of the European Union at all costs. They are desperate to be disappointed, and they are here in the House today. Their only role in this debate is to push for demands that they know will not be met.
	The agenda that was published today raises important issues including some that were in our own election manifesto, such as protection for the rights of non-eurozone countries and those of national Parliaments. It also includes other ideas which are already in train. May I now ask the Minister to respond to some specific questions?
	It is right that we press for guarantees for non-eurozone members in the future. Our manifesto argued for that, and it is in our economic interests. Does the Minister agree, however, that it would be a mistake for Britain, in so doing, to volunteer or embrace some kind of second-class or associate membership of the EU, while still paying the full costs of membership? Would not such an outcome weaken Britain rather than strengthening our position?
	Why is there so little in the agenda about jobs and growth for the future, given that the problem with which Europe has been struggling for some time has been low growth and high unemployment? The Minister has talked of reducing the burden on business. Can he guarantee that nothing in this agenda will reduce the hard-won employment rights that have been agreed at European level over the years, including rights to paid leave, rights for part-time workers, and fair pay for temporary and agency workers? Does he accept that it would be a huge mistake to try to build support for a reformed European Union on the back of a bonfire of workers’ rights?
	We note the retreat from earlier statements and hints from the Prime Minister that he would seek an emergency brake or an end to the principle of free movement. Is the Prime Minister set on the four-year timescale for access to in-work benefits, or is that subject to negotiation at the European Council? Will the Minister also tell us specifically whether it would mean a change in EU legislation, or a change in the way in which the system works here in the UK?
	Does the Minister agree that it is for those who wish to reject the agenda as too little—many of whom are sitting behind him, and who are determined to take Britain out of the EU—to state clearly to the British people what being out would mean for our jobs, for our trade, for our investment, for our employment rights, and for our national security?
	Of course the European Union faces big challenges in recovering from the eurozone crisis, offering more hope for the future, and dealing with the urgent and immediate refugee crisis that it faces, but we believe that those challenges will be best met if Britain plays a leading role in the future of the European Union, and if we use our power and influence with others to overcome them.
	There is a broader case that goes far beyond those four points about Britain’s place in the world and the EU, and that case has to be made. Our history is not the same as that of many other member states, and perhaps we will never look at these issues through precisely the same eyes, but that is not the same as wanting to leave. Reform is essential. It should be an ongoing process, not a single event, and Labour Members will keep arguing for a Britain that is engaged with the world, using its power and influence to the maximum and not walking away from a partnership that we have been members of for 40 years and which has brought many benefits to the people and the economy of this country.

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions and I will deal with them in turn.
	On relations between EU and non-EU members, we do need to have, as part of this negotiation, safeguards against any risk of caucusing by eurozone countries, who if they chose to act as a caucus could command an automatic qualified majority within Council of Ministers meetings. There are clearly going to be some issues that derive directly from a currency union where eurozone countries quite legitimately will want to talk among themselves, and it is going to be important that we have a deal that allows the eurozone to do the work of integration it is going to need to do, but which properly safeguards the integrity of the single market of 28 members and decision making across the board in terms of the EU responsibilities in respect of the 28.
	The right hon. Gentleman teased me a little about the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have to say that when I have appeared before some of the Committees of this House, I have encountered Opposition Members who are equally committed to British withdrawal from the EU. The truth is that this is a matter—[Interruption.] Indeed, I am reminded that the Labour party leader, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not been renowned for his enthusiasm for British membership of the EU. This issue has legitimately cut across party divisions for as long as EU membership has been a concern in the UK. People within both parties hold honourable, principled views both for and against British membership, and I think that that is likely always to be the case.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the challenge of low growth. I think that not only what the Government are saying in this renegotiation, but what they have led and helped to shape within the EU ever since 2010, demonstrates the seriousness with which we take this issue. I know the Prime Minister was personally involved in the negotiation that clinched the deal on an EU-Korea free trade agreement, something that is now proving of immense value to British industry. It is the British Government who have helped to energise the debate towards a digital single market across Europe, something that will give small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as large companies, increased opportunities.
	No Conservative Member wants to make, in the right hon. Gentleman’s words, a bonfire of workers’ rights, but we also need to have in mind the reality that other countries that which have chosen to go for a much more regulated approach to the employment market have often, tragically, suffered much higher levels of unemployment than we have in the UK. Keeping the UK’s opt-out from the working time directive, for example, is something we will fight very hard to make sure is entrenched by this renegotiation.
	On freedom of movement, the Prime Minister made his view very clear: our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We think we can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system, which is why my right hon. Friend set out proposals in November and repeated them today. Others in the EU have concerns about this, and that is why we say to them, “If that’s what you think, put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same result.” It is the outcome of the measures—controlled, fair and properly managed migration—that is the end that we seek.
	Finally, on the question of what is meant by “out”, the Prime Minister said again this morning that he did not think either the Swiss or Norwegian models would be right for the UK. The question of what “out” might mean will be a key element in the forthcoming referendum debate.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of Members are seeking to catch my eye, and that was entirely to be expected. In order to have any chance of accommodating them, brevity will be of the essence.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the big issue that will be settled in this forthcoming referendum is how best this country is to protect its national interests and security in the modern world and how best to enhance our prosperity for the next 30 or 50 years? Will he seek to ensure that we do not lose sight of that when we address current events?
	While our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is embarking on very important negotiations—and I wish him success on competitiveness in particular—will the Minister for Europe ensure that when we are negotiating the benefit rights of those foreign nationals who work alongside British people in employment in this country, we remember the interests of the 2 million or so British nationals who live and work in the EU and do not wish to see those Governments start to discriminate against our nationals in their tax and benefits systems?

David Lidington: The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s second point is certainly yes, the interests of British people are always at the heart of this Government’s thinking about any area of policy, and we will certainly continue to treat the national, economic and security interests of the UK as the core objective of every aspect of this European negotiation.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Minister for making an oral statement to the House and for forward sight of his statement.
	What a difference a year makes: just last year Scots were being told that if we voted yes to independence we would be getting chucked out of the EU, and now, frankly, we could not be closer to the exit.
	The Minister said earlier that there would be a process of formal negotiation with the Europeans. Will he make a commitment to us today to consult the devolved Administrations as a formal part of that negotiation? He also said, quoting the Dutch,
	“European where necessary, national where possible.”
	Will that include devolving the powers, where appropriate, to the devolved Administrations? Finally, will the Minister tell us what on Scotland’s agenda for reform has been included in this statement today?

David Lidington: Of course, we were voting to give additional devolved powers to Scotland only yesterday in this House. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I spoke to Minister Fiona Hyslop this morning, and the question of the reform and renegotiation is now on the agenda as the first item at every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe which I chair and which includes
	Ministers from all the devolved Administrations. I am visiting Edinburgh tomorrow when I will have further conversations with the Scottish Government of the type the hon. Gentleman urges upon me, and as I said to Ms Hyslop this morning, I remain open to listen to the views of, and make sure the UK Government take full account of the interests of, all three devolved Administrations as we take this negotiation forward.

Bill Cash: The Minister is, if I may say so, not correct in thinking that the legal mechanisms for delivery of these proposals are not part of the solution. Does he not accept that treaty change is needed for virtually every proposal and, furthermore, that treaty change is not on offer, so how are the so-called legally irreversible changes going to be made when even the legal expert from the European Commission says that the Danish and Irish precedents are not valid? How is he going to be able to sell this pig in a poke?

David Lidington: Some but not all aspects of the package of reforms that we are seeking will need treaty change. We are certainly looking at different models, including those that have been used by Denmark and Ireland in the past. The technical talks that have taken place in Brussels involving senior British officials have also involved representatives of the institutional legal services, so we are working closely alongside the current heads of the legal services of the institutions. We believe that we will be able to find an appropriate way forward on every one of the issues that I listed in my statement.

Ben Bradshaw: Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), will the Minister acknowledge that other EU citizens living here contribute far more through their taxes than they receive in services or social security payments? The problem with social security is not the EU; it is the fact that, almost uniquely, we in the UK have lost the contributory principle from our system. The answer is to start to reintroduce that principle.

David Lidington: I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the debate about migration controls, it is important that we not stray into stigmatising people from elsewhere in Europe, or from any other part of the world, who are here obeying the law, working and contributing to life in this country. He mentioned the contributory principle, but that point could also apply to policy pursued under successive British Governments of all political stripes. I draw his attention back to article 153 of the treaty, which makes it clear that it is for member states, rather than the EU, to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems. I believe that it would contradict that treaty provision if we were to say that only one model for social security was compatible.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister has described different legal mechanisms for achieving our objectives. Will he tell us what they are?

David Lidington: No. That is a matter for the detailed negotiations that are now under way. The technical talks have given us a menu of options to help us determine, in respect of particular reforms, whether we would be able to rely on secondary legislation, on treaty change, on protocols or on political commitment. That menu of options will now be available to the Heads of Government as they embark on the political negotiations. The purpose of the technical talks has been to ensure that leaders are informed about the legal and procedural solutions that are available, so that they do not have to start that work from scratch when they are in a leaders’ meeting.

Gisela Stuart: We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. Will the Minister tell us which treaty provision he intends to use for that purpose, and if he does not have one, will he negotiate a new one?

David Lidington: In my statement, I described the areas in which we are seeking change. If the right hon. Lady looks at what the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, she will see that he spoke of making the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality more of a reality, and of establishing an agreed mechanism within the EU system to ensure that we not only look at new proposals coming out of the Commission but have a means of reviewing regularly the existing exercise of competences and deciding which competences that are currently exercised at EU level no longer need to be exercised at that level.

John Redwood: Do we not have to control our own borders in order to fulfil the popular Conservative promise to cut net migration by more than two thirds during this Parliament? Should not we decide what the rules are, and apply them fairly to the whole world, rather than distinguishing between Europe and non-Europe?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been completely consistent in saying that he accepts the basic principle of freedom of movement for workers, but that that should not become a freedom to choose the most attractive welfare system in the European Union. On our estimate, something like 40% of the people who are here from elsewhere in the EU are receiving benefits or tax credits of some kind, and action on that front will have a significant effect on the pull factor that our welfare system exercises at the moment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. He has already set much store by treaty change, but the Council of Ministers and the European Commission constantly break their own solemn word, and their treaties, in matters that are fundamental to them, so why should we put our faith or our trust in any changes that they might agree to?

David Lidington: When matters are made the subject of treaty change, they become binding in European and international law. There have been occasions, particularly in regard to the development of the single market, when British interests have been safeguarded by the existence of treaty provisions relating to discrimination against a country’s products in the single market. For example, we went through the European process in order to secure the lifting of the beef export ban. There is a stronger element of protection there than the hon. Gentleman might think.

Caroline Spelman: Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a single market for services would be a big prize for British business, and that it would create many jobs? Does he also agree that that can be achieved only by being within the European Union?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have a single market for goods, and it is working pretty well, but the single market for services is woefully underdeveloped, despite the fact that in every European economy, it will be the services sectors from which the new jobs and the new growth will come. We need to seek determined action in that area.

Douglas Carswell: The Prime Minister has paid the usual lip service to the EU’s crisis of competitiveness, but, rather like what happened under his predecessor, Tony Blair, 15 years ago, nothing has changed. The Minister’s own officials are growing weary of initiatives that fail to tackle Euro-sclerosis. What exactly is going to be different this time? Will the Minister spell out the details of the plans that will magically make the EU more competitive?

David Lidington: If there is one thing that does not change, it is the nature of the hon. Gentleman’s interventions on this subject. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and I have spoken frequently on the agenda on competitiveness, and I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a sheaf of speeches if he would like me to. Broadly, this is about three things. It is about cutting the cost of unnecessary red tape and regulation on all businesses, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about deepening the single market, particularly in digital and in services, where it is underdeveloped at the moment. And it is about forging ambitious new trade agreements with other countries and other regions of the world, for their benefit and ours. These are the opportunities that British business has urged us to take, and this Government are determined not to follow but to lead on these matters in the European debate.

Peter Lilley: Will my right hon. Friend avoid using up his limited bargaining power to obtain purely symbolic changes such as removing the words “ever closer union”, given that they have never been invoked by the European Court against Britain or used to require any other member state to move in an integrationist direction? They have even been dropped from the constitutional treaty. Will he instead focus on getting back any powers that are not required to run a common trading area, so that we in this Parliament can make more of our own laws and hold our lawmakers to account?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always said that he is seeking a deal on reform that is substantive. That will be challenging to negotiate, and
	I do not want any Member to think that these reforms will somehow fall easily into our lap. There will be some tough negotiations ahead.
	The importance of the words on “ever closer union” is that they encapsulate the fact that the EU at the moment is insufficiently flexible, still thinking of a single destination on integration for all its member states. As the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we need to see a much greater acceptance of the diversity of Europe at the moment. We need to see a readiness to live and let live, accepting that some countries will want to integrate more closely but others will wish to stand apart from that and that the decisions of each group should be properly respected.

Mike Gapes: The Minister said that the agreement must be legally binding and irreversible. Will he clarify what he means by “irreversible”? Does it mean what happened in the case of the John Major opt-out on the social chapter, which was then reversed by the Tony Blair Government? Does it mean that no future democratically elected Government would be able to reverse a decision taken at this time by this Government?

David Lidington: Obviously, as Parliament is sovereign, not least in the fact that EU law has direct effect in the UK only because of Acts of Parliament—decisions of this House—the irreversibility of any decision any Government take on anything is limited. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are keen to avoid a repeat of the sort of thing that happened over the European financial stabilisation mechanism earlier this year, when, in the heat of a crisis in the eurozone, a deal that had been solemnly agreed by all 28 member states in December 2010 suddenly appeared to be at risk and came up for discussion in a meeting where only 19 member Governments were gathered together. That is not the way in which we can do business in Europe in the future.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend must know that this is pretty thin gruel—it is much less than people had come to expect from the Government. It takes out a few words from the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties; it deals with competition, for which the European Commission itself has a proposal; and it fails to restore control of our borders. It seems to me that its whole aim is to make Harold Wilson’s renegotiation look respectable. It needs to do more; it needs to have a full list of powers that will be restored to the United Kingdom and to this Parliament, not vacuously to Parliaments plural.

David Lidington: The problem with the idea of a unilateral national parliamentary veto, which my hon. Friend advocates, is that it would mean that, for example, the most protectionist Parliament in any one member state could veto every deregulatory and every single market measure that the United Kingdom believed was profoundly in the interests of our people and our prosperity. Such a unilateral veto would be incompatible even with the arrangements that Norway and Switzerland have with the European Union. I just say to him that if he had had the privilege and responsibility of sitting at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels, a responsibility that he may well indeed enjoy at some future stage of his career, he would be less sanguine about what he terms the unambitious nature of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is going to require some very tough negotiating indeed.

Graham Jones: It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister is putting the referendum to the British people but he cannot explain what the British people are voting for. If they are voting out but they are not voting for the arrangements Norway or Switzerland have, what is it that the British people are voting for?

David Lidington: That will be a question for those who are campaigning for out to make clear when the referendum comes. A number of studies have been published on what various options for British engagement with Europe would look like. As for the Government, we are relentlessly focused on securing a successful outcome to this negotiation and delivering the reformed Europe that the British people want.

Andrew Tyrie: Removing the commitment to “ever closer union” will be nothing more than a rhetorical gesture unless it is backed by a radical shake-up of the way the EU takes its decisions. Does the Minister agree that most EU legislation is stitched up between the Commission, the European Parliament and member states behind closed doors, in the impenetrable process known as “trilogue”, and is currently acting as an integrationist ratchet? What specific proposals do the Government have for halting and reversing that ratchet?

David Lidington: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we certainly think we need a new mechanism in the EU’s system for working that guards against that ratchet and provides for the opportunity to review and reallocate powers that do not need to be exercised at a European level. The pamphlet recently published by my hon. Friend provides some constructive and imaginative suggestions as to how we might take that forward.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The Prime Minister, in his letter, welcomes last month’s new EU trade strategy. Will the Government first carry out an assessment of how these trade deals would be affected by his wider demands for economic reform? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding of the recent remarks by Michael Froman, the US trade representative, that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would not be able to negotiate an independent trade deal with the United States?

David Lidington: I heard what Mr Froman said. Obviously, he is a senior official in the current US Administration, so one has to take what he says seriously. On the general point the hon. Lady makes, we see further moves forward in free trade deals as an important element in securing the reformed European Union that we want. The potential deal with the US is the most ambitious and most far reaching in its consequences of any of those, but I welcome the fact that the Commission’s trade strategy is also talking about forging new trade deals with some of the emerging economies and also with our good allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand.

Gerald Howarth: In this year, as we mark the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament—some of our continental partners are rather newcomers to this concept—may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that unless we return powers to this Parliament, this exercise will not be worthwhile, for it is in this Parliament that authority ultimately should reside, on behalf of the British people? Can he therefore explain to us how on earth this new arrangement, whereby groups of national Parliaments acting together can stop unwanted legislative proposals, is going to work?

David Lidington: I share my hon. Friend’s love of English history, but I caution him against seeing Simon de Montfort as a true-born Englishman. The direct answer to his question is that the treaties already provide for a mechanism whereby a group of national Parliaments can demand and secure a review by the Commission of a measure the Commission is bringing forward. We think one option we should be looking at is turning such an arrangement above a certain threshold into an outright veto—a red card rather than a yellow card.

Phil Wilson: Speaking as the chair of the parliamentary Labour party’s pro-EU group, which has more than 210 members, including the whole of the shadow Cabinet and the leader of the Labour party, I can tell the House that we are united behind staying in a Europe which is reforming and progressive. The Minister has said that if the Prime Minister does not get his own way, he rules nothing out, so if we leave Europe, what does that mean for the UK?

David Lidington: Clearly, when the negotiations are over the Government will make their assessment and their recommendation clear, setting out in detail their reasons for coming to that view, including their assessment of what alternative options there might be and the Government’s view on those. I do not think therefore that the hon. Gentleman has anything to fear. Our focus remains on a successful outcome to these negotiations, which we believe will deliver a reformed Europe—that is what the British people want to see.

Neil Carmichael: The clarity and ambition of the reforms that the Minister have outlined demonstrate that there is a big job of work to do. They also remind us just how important British leadership of the European Union has been. I am referring here to the introduction of the single market in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and the extension of that market, hopefully soon, because of the conclusion of those reforms. Does the Minister agree that our real ambition is to restate Britain’s leadership of the European Union in conjunction with other nation states so that we can bring about an innovative, modern and responsive economy that will benefit us all?

David Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we look back at the European Union’s history, we can take pride in the fact that two of its greatest achievements—building a single market across Europe and enlarging the European Union to embrace the new democracies of eastern and central Europe—were very much brought about by British leadership and, in particular, by the personal drive of Margaret Thatcher. What he says is important and the Government very much share the spirit in which he posed his question.

Tom Brake: I am relieved that the Prime Minister has finally outlined his negotiating stance, and I wish him every success with it, because I want him to be able to bang the drum enthusiastically for our EU membership. Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful reform is secured, the Prime Minister and the European Union will not have to deliver fully on all the fronts set out in the Prime Minister’s letter, including on in-work benefits, for the Prime Minister to be able to campaign vigorously in favour of the UK’s continued EU membership, the benefits of which were clearly set out in the EU’s balance of competences review?

David Lidington: We will need to have a satisfactory outcome that meets our requirements on all four of the areas of policies that I have described. Our position on welfare and migration remains as the Prime Minister set out in November and as he repeated this morning.

Richard Drax: I note the constraints suggested by the Prime Minister that the free movement of peoples is not working and will never work. Even Sweden and Germany are realising that today. Would not a visa system for all be fairer and safeguard our borders?

David Lidington: The Home Office always keeps our visa arrangements under review, but I ask my hon. Friend to think about the consequences for the way in which both business and tourism operate between us and our neighbours in other democracies in Europe were there to be individual visas of the sort that he has described. It would certainly have to apply in reverse to British tourists and business visitors as well.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very keen to accommodate colleagues, but progress is leisurely—some might even describe it as lethargic. As I like guessing games and want to encourage Members to think, let me suggest that if they could model their contributions on those of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), progress would be altogether speedier.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for his statement and for early sight of it. In his statement, he used the phrase “salary to be subsidised by the state.” How will the Government differentiate legally between salaries subsidised by the state for foreigners and tax credits to hand out to UK citizens?

David Lidington: Those are all matters that will be addressed during the course of the negotiations.

Damian Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring full permanent access to the single market without joining the euro is a key objective for our future economic health and would be a key sign that our continued membership of a reformed European Union gives us the best of both worlds—prosperity and flexibility?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend put that very well, and getting that best of both worlds is exactly what the Prime Minister is seeking to do.

Wayne David: I was very pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s letter that he hopes to be in a position to campaign with all his “heart and soul” to keep Britain in the European Union, but any negotiation requires priorities. What are the Prime Minister’s priorities?

David Lidington: The Prime Minister’s priorities are the four policy objectives that he set out this morning, and that I repeated in my statement today.

Bernard Jenkin: After all the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary, and the former Foreign Secretary about being in Europe and not being run by Europe, and after all the pledges to restore the primacy of national Parliaments and to get an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights to restore our borders, is that it? Is that the sum total of the Government’s position in this renegotiation? Is not the onus on those who advocate that we should stay in the European Union to explain why we should put up with being a second-tier country in an increasingly centralised European Union, paying more and more, and losing more and more control?

David Lidington: Just on the charter of fundamental rights, the Prime Minister did refer to that in his speech this morning. It is an issue that we will be seeking to address through the forthcoming British Bill of Rights. I think that my hon. Friend underestimates how demanding and how far reaching the proposal that we have made will be. The Danish Prime Minister said this morning that what the Prime Minister proposed was
	“a good basis for concrete negotiations”
	but that “it will be difficult”. I hope that we succeed because we need a strong UK in the European Union.

Margaret Ritchie: How will the Minister ensure that investment will not be impacted by the uncertainty that will precede an EU referendum, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is in a unique situation, with a land border with a south of Ireland that will continue to be part of the European Union?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady is right, and it is one reason why I regard it as an important responsibility on my part to keep in very close contact with what the three devolved Administrations—in this case the Northern Ireland Executive—are thinking. At the moment, there are no signs that the flow of foreign direct investment is drying up. In fact it is still the case that the United Kingdom gets a bigger share of third country direct investment into the European Union than any other member state.

David Jones: Given that my right hon. Friend has conceded that several elements of the Prime Minister’s letter will require treaty change, will he tell the House what is his best estimate of the length of time that that change will take, even if it were miraculously to be immediately agreed?

David Lidington: I do not blame my right hon. Friend for asking what is a legitimate question, but that is something that we will be talking about in the context of the negotiations. Clearly, it is true—this is what I think lays behind his question—that each member state will have its own constitutional arrangements for ratifying any new treaty.

Clive Efford: Has the Prime Minister told the Minister of State the date by which he will make up his mind and tell us which way he will go in this referendum? If we are voting to leave the EU, why has he not set out exactly what we are voting for?

David Lidington: The Prime Minister will make his position clear at the end of the negotiations. It would seem slightly odd to embark on a process of negotiations and declare at the beginning what the outcome was going to be.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister tell us whether we or Europe should decide on how many migrants come to the UK?

David Lidington: We are seeking a situation in which we have tougher rules against the abuse of freedom of movement by criminals, fraudsters and others. We also want to reduce significantly the pull factor that our welfare system provides at present.

Jim Shannon: The Minister referred to working together to block unwanted European legislation. Our fishing industry has been subject to some of the most unwarranted European legislation, giving us more red tape, more bureaucracy, fewer fishing boats and fewer jobs. Our fishing sector just wants control over local fishing waters; it does not want the EU to have that control. Will the Minister tell us what has been done to help our fishermen?

David Lidington: I think that we have demonstrated, through our actions as well as our words, our support for the UK fishing community. I am talking about the reform of the common fisheries policy that British Ministers helped to secure last year. That has led to a ban on the practice of discarding, which is something that British Governments of all colours have been trying to achieve for decades, and a shift towards more local and regional management of fisheries than was the case in the past.

David Nuttall: What has not been included in the statement is far more important than what has been included. There is nothing about regaining control over our trade deals with the rest of the world, nothing about regaining control over farming, fisheries, regional aid or state aid and nothing about ending the free movement of people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today will be looked back on as the day when it became clear that the renegotiation amounts to no more than tinkering around the edges, and fundamentally on great areas of policy this country will still finish up being told what to do by the rest of the EU?

David Lidington: No, I do not, on two counts. First, my hon. Friend understates the significance of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has proposed. Secondly, this is a matter in the end for the British people, not me, the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House, and if they decide to stay in a reformed European Union, the responsibility of this and any future British Government will be not to be passive but to lead the debate within Europe and secure outcomes that benefit the security and prosperity of the British people.

Stuart Donaldson: As the Minister did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), can I ask again what specifically from Scotland’s agenda for EU reform has been included in the Government’s negotiations?

David Lidington: The last time I talked to Scottish Ministers about their proposals, they were very keen on measures to deepen the single market in services and digital, which would provide major benefits to Scotland, and to take forward new free trade deals with countries around the world. I remind the hon. Gentleman that greater access to foreign markets for the Scotch whisky industry is something that the United Kingdom Government consistently put at the forefront of our own input into the Brussels discussions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the result of the EU referendum is to be enduring, it must not be on the basis of a false prospectus. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us an assurance that any changes that are agreed will be properly legally binding and not subject to a fudge when the referendum is over?

David Lidington: The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we need to have outcomes that make sure that whatever package of reforms can be achieved, assuming that the negotiations are successful, they are legally binding and irreversible, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend gives.

Steve McCabe: There has been a lot of speculation about an early referendum. Without a running commentary, will the Minister set out the essential steps and the timetable necessary to make it possible to hold a referendum next year?

David Lidington: We need to have the European Referendum Bill on the statute book and to have concluded the European negotiations. When both those criteria have been fulfilled, we need to allow time for secondary legislation that appoints a specific date to go through both Houses of Parliament, and after that we need to allow for a campaign period of a minimum of 10 weeks.

Mark Pritchard: Europe’s economies will eventually return to growth, so is it not in the national interest of our continental European partners to support the Prime Minister in seeking to reduce in-work benefits and in turn to reduce the brain-drain out of Europe?

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite a tragic predicament to find many highly qualified, very well-educated young men and women who feel that they have no option but to take an unskilled, low-paid job in another European country because they cannot find work at home. The long-term answer to that challenge must in large part lie in the ability of national Governments and the European Union to generate resurgent economic growth and add to opportunities for employment.

Wes Streeting: Can I cheer up the Minister by assuring him that pro-EU, pro-reform Members on this side of the House warmly welcome his statement today? What would be the Government’s position in the event of an out vote? Members on these Benches remember the ‘90s, and we do not want to see this Prime Minister marching out into the rose garden and inviting the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to put up or shut up. We want the Prime Minister to tell us where he stands; we do not want that lot dictating what happens in the event of an out vote.

David Lidington: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind thoughts, but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The result of the referendum will be regarded by the Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British people as a whole to take, and I am proud that it is my party and a Conservative Government that are finally giving the British people the right to take that decision.

Tom Pursglove: It has never been a matter of no immigration; we want controlled immigration. What evidence is there that reducing access to benefits will have any real effect on the number of people coming into this country?

David Lidington: A number of factors give rise to migration, but the fact that roughly 40% of people from elsewhere in the EU who live in the UK are in receipt of benefits or tax credits of some sort indicates that that is one of the major contributors to the pull factors.

Liz McInnes: In his speech this morning the Prime Minister announced his intention to scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act. Is he opposed to the Act because it was a Labour Government who finally implemented it, or is he opposed to human rights on a more fundamental level?

David Lidington: I am sorry if the hon. Lady was shocked by that sentence in the Prime Minister’s speech, but it was in the Conservative party manifesto back in May. She is obviously entitled to defend the Blair Government’s Human Rights Act, but this country enjoyed a long tradition of respect for human rights well before that legislation was enacted, and I am confident that the United Kingdom will continue to have such a tradition when it has been replaced.

Henry Smith: I will be proud to walk through the Division Lobby in support of the Government’s European Union Referendum Bill. Does my right hon. Friend think that most of the Opposition parties completely lack credibility, first, because they fought the right of the British people to have a say on our EU membership, and secondly because they now seem to be fighting the concept of reform?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members grossly underestimate the sense of resentment among many men and women in this country at having seen treaty after treaty go through, changing the balance of powers in Europe, with the British people never being asked to have their say.

Mark Durkan: It is said that Christopher Columbus, when he set out, did not know where he was going; when he got there, he did not know here he was, and when he got back, he did not know where he had been. Is there not a serious danger of the Prime Minister facing exactly the same situation with his holographic negotiation strategy? Is the Minister not concerned that in personalising this, as he did in his statement, as the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, he creates a fundamental point of weakness in that we will have a Prime Minister’s referendum on a question that people view as somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf?

David Lidington: The entire Government were elected on a manifesto of renegotiation, reform and referendum. I enjoyed the joke, but Christopher Columbus is remembered for his achievement in navigation and discovery and for symbolising the opening of a new age. I hope that this renegotiation is the start of a new age of greater flexibility, democracy and competitiveness for Europe.

Steven Baker: Some minutes ago I think I heard my right hon. Friend explain that the Bill of Rights would deal with our obligations under the charter of fundamental rights. Do the Government intend to legislate notwithstanding our obligations under the EU, or do they have some other plan, as yet unannounced, to deal with our voluntary subjection to the European Court of Justice?

David Lidington: In many cases involving trade and the single market, the European Court of Justice has produced judgments that have been very much to the advantage of British interests. It is true that if there is a single market, some kind of independent judicial arbiter is needed to settle disputes. My hon. Friend will need to contain his understandable impatience a little longer. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary intends in due course to announce details of the way forward on replacing the Bill of Rights and the implications of that policy.

Jonathan Reynolds: I welcome the statement. The Minister has set out some very reasonable things to the House. May I assure him that there are many on the Opposition Benches who will work constructively with him and the Government to get the best for the UK and to face down some of the abuse that he has received from his own side on the statement today? There are people who would recklessly leave the EU, regardless of the cost to this country.

David Lidington: For five and a half years now I have had the pleasure of vigorous and sometimes robust discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as with Opposition Members. There are passionately and honourably held differences of view across the House in all parties about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe. I hope we can continue to take this debate forward in a spirit of mutual respect for people whose views may differ from our own.

Steve Double: The debate on whether the British people should vote to remain in or leave the EU has been characterised by some in terms of the certainty of remaining against the uncertainty of leaving, but does my right hon. Friend agree that with the current uncertain situation in Europe, particularly on the eurozone and the impact of the migrant crisis, voting to remain is as much a leap in the dark as voting to leave?

David Lidington: I advise my hon. Friend to wait until the conclusion of the negotiations, because we will then have much greater clarity over the nature of the choice that the British people will have to make.

Paula Sherriff: The Minister will be aware that the Financial Secretary promised to negotiate at EU level to achieve a zero rate of VAT on feminine hygiene products. He did not commit to a timetable, however, nor did he say that this would be placed alongside the Prime Minister’s other demands. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that women’s rights are not a second-class issue on this Government’s European agenda, by making those commitments today?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a very clear pledge to the House from this Dispatch Box, and the Government will pursue that.

James Cartlidge: Part 1 of the letter on economic governance states:
	“There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union”—
	those in the euro and those outside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the countries currently outside the euro other than ourselves are likely to remain in that position for many, many years to come, and that therefore it is in the wider interests of the whole EU that the European Union accepts that reality and enters into our negotiations on this point with an understanding of that fact?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For as far ahead as I can see, there will be some EU member states that will be part of the single currency and a significant number, not only the United Kingdom, that will be outside it. I believe that those in the eurozone will need to integrate their fiscal, economic and, to some extent, political arrangements more closely. The stability of the currency union is in the interests of the United Kingdom, even though we are not going to join it, so getting that relationship right between euro-ins and euro-outs is an important strategic challenge, and it is a central feature of our negotiation for that reason.

Peter Grant: The Minister’s statement understandably consisted largely of significant chunks quoted from the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk. One section that the Minister did not repeat, though, was the Prime Minister’s closing remarks, in which he said:
	“I am ready to campaign with all my heart and soul to keepBritain inside a reformed European Union”.
	Why did the Minister not include that? Is it because, instead of campaigning with his heart and soul with his own party leader, he intends to campaign with the leader of UKIP?

David Lidington: Despite the challenges ahead, I remain confident of a successful outcome to these negotiations and of joining enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in favour of continued British membership of a reformed European Union on the basis that my right hon. Friend set out in his speech this morning.

Craig Mackinlay: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today. I am pleased to see that “rule nothing out” still features large in everything that is said and heard. What vexes me, and I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members, is the best way to achieve that deal and the aims that he has advanced today, which are both welcome and laudable—free trade, immigration and benefits control, sovereignty of Parliament, independent economic governance and the removal of ever-closer union. Does he agree that the best way to achieve these aims is very simple—that is, to vote to leave?

Mr Speaker: Order. I let the hon. Gentleman blurt it out because I did not wish to stop him in mid-flow, but the question, which was more a list, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long, and it would be good to avoid that in future. I say that to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

David Lidington: No, I agree rather with the Prime Minister when he said that we would get the best of both worlds by continued membership of a reformed European Union which provided us with amplified power for our own economic and security objectives for international work, but which was also a Europe more committed in the future than now to democratic accountability, to acceptance of its own diversity and to economic competitiveness.

Conor McGinn: Yesterday the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, was in Downing Street, where he spoke of his concerns about the impact that a UK exit would have on British-Irish relations. Does the Minister accept that those concerns are shared by many people in Britain? What do the Government propose to do to address them?

David Lidington: We have a very close relationship with Ireland and it is true that the reconciliation in Northern Ireland has in part been brought about in the context of the fact that the United Kingdom and Ireland have worked very closely together as partners within the European Union. We will certainly be listening to all our friends across Europe, as well as to the views of leaders in Northern Ireland, but at the end of the day this is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom to decide, just as the Irish people have voted many times on whether or not to accept new European Union treaties.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for making the statement, and I commend him on the way he goes about making statements and engages with the House. I very much welcome the evolution of the themes and policies in the statement. My constituents will probably make up their mind based on two things—whether we can control our own borders, and the ability to trade widely with the world. With the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership bogged down in a politically correct quagmire in the European Union, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the ability of the European Union to conclude future free trade deals?

David Lidington: It is indeed complex and challenging sometimes to get an agreed negotiating position across 28 different countries and give the mandate to the Commission to negotiate collectively on our behalf, but the weight—the leverage—that derives from negotiating as a marketplace of 500 million people is very significant indeed. It makes other Governments, even of large countries, more willing to endure the political hassle that they themselves face with their own business interests in order to bring about free trade agreements which, I believe, are a win-win for both sides.

Patrick Grady: Given that the Government have repeatedly rejected the principle of a double majority in the referendum, will the Minister accept the result if England votes narrowly to leave, but is outvoted by the rest of the UK voting to stay in? More importantly, will his Back Benchers, who have barely asked a single supportive question, accept that result?

David Lidington: It is the United Kingdom that is the member state of the European Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party in May this year was against giving the people of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom the chance to vote on their future in Europe.

Andrew Murrison: I respect my right hon. Friend very much indeed, but does he seriously believe that Timmermans’ grudging enjoinder, “Europe where necessary, national where possible”, iterated in the Tusk letter and reiterated in his speech today, is a sufficiently ambitious lodestar for the UK’s negotiations?

David Lidington: It is one important and significant element in the negotiation, but it is not the whole story.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is an important step on the journey towards fundamental reform in the EU. Given the current unsustainable migration flows, does he agree that it is vital to ensure that visitors from the EU must first reside here and also contribute before they qualify for in-work benefits and social housing, and will he make this an urgent priority?

David Lidington: Indeed; that is exactly the objective that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech today.

James Cleverly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in both our and the EU’s interests to trade more freely with the high-growth-potential Commonwealth economies, and that if the EU continues to move glacially on this issue, we should build more free trade agreements with the Commonwealth on our own?

David Lidington: The Commonwealth countries, important though they are, account for only 17% of global GDP, taken all together. I agree with my hon. Friend’s emphasis on the need to forge free trade agreements with emerging economies as well as with developed economies, but I caution against thinking that it would be quicker and easier to strike such a deal if the United Kingdom, with 65 million people, were negotiating rather than the European Union, with a 500 million-strong market.

Alec Shelbrooke: At this time of renegotiation, those who have their minds set on what they are going to do are almost irrelevant. However, will my right hon. Friend send a message to Europhiles like the political scientist Professor Hix, who gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee and felt that no matter what the renegotiations achieved, the dangers lie in those who believe that this country would vote to stay in if nothing is achieved? The default position at the moment, as I read the Prime Minister’s statement, is that if nothing changes we will opt to leave.

David Lidington: The Prime Minister is very clear that he believes that serious reforms are essential if the British people are to believe that their future lies in membership of the European Union.

David Davies: If we vote to leave the European Union, how long will a legally binding exit take—days, weeks, months or years?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is understandably inviting me to speculate about a post-referendum outcome when the Government are focused on what happens during a referendum. I suggest that he might like to study article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, particularly subsections (2) and (3), which will give him a lot more detail on the matter.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that it is in the Library if the hon. Gentleman is not fully conversant with it already. I expect that the Minister of State could reproduce it backwards in Sanskrit, and probably did so when he won “University Challenge”.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for his statement and the fortitude he is showing in answering so many questions. Does he agree that the crisis in the eurozone means that the eurozone countries need to move together and agree a single fiscal policy for their single currency, but the key for our negotiations has to be that for the non-euro countries, Europe needs to do less and do it better?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend puts the point well and succinctly, and I agree with his comments.

Robert Jenrick: As hon. Members have said, the EU is very slow at concluding important free trade deals around the world, and that can harm our international competitiveness. Are the Government still committed to negotiating a means to fast-track important free trade deals in Europe?

David Lidington: We believe that Europe needs to take forward with much greater energy and determination the work in securing free trade deals with other countries and regions of the world. The trade strategy recently published by the Commission demonstrates a new and raised level of ambition that we very much welcome, but we want this agenda to be turbocharged.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that when we, as a sovereign Parliament, find ourselves in the position where we cannot even reduce the level of VAT on women’s sanitary products, the European Union has far too much power? Will he join me in criticising those who naively say that they would stay in Europe at any price, thereby undermining our renegotiations because without a walk-away position there can be no meaningful renegotiation?

David Lidington: The Government are clear that we need some very clear agreed reforms in order to make the recommendation to the British people that the Prime Minister said that he wishes to make, but also the British people will need to see serious reforms if they are to be persuaded to vote in favour of continued British membership. Beyond that, Europe as a whole would benefit from the sort of reforms that we are advocating because there are too many jobless young people in Europe who need greater European competitiveness, and in very many European countries we are seeing a sense of dissatisfaction and alienation from the way in which decisions are currently taken in Brussels.

Michael Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend rightly said at the beginning of his statement that we have a mandate to renegotiate thanks to our securing an outright Conservative victory at the general election. Does he agree that the reforms need to be permanent and irreversible as well as sufficient, because otherwise residents in my constituency and elsewhere will simply vote to leave?

David Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mike Wood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the referendum at the end of these negotiations must be final and that there can be no question of second chances or further renegotiation if people choose to leave the European Union?

David Lidington: Yes. The decision that the British people make will be binding. As the Prime Minister said, this is probably the most important vote for the future of this country that any of us who are of voting age will take part in during our lifetimes. The idea that one can then somehow go away and think again is at odds with reality and at odds, too, with the procedure spelled out in the treaties.

Peter Bone: rose—

Mr Speaker: Time for dessert. I call Mr Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	May I thank the excellent Europe Minister for making this statement, and for his long tenure in office and the way in which he has managed to change position so many times? On occasion, I almost believe him. I thank the Prime Minister for his honesty today in coming forward with a renegotiation package that makes it clear that if the package is successful, we will still be in a political union and still have free movement. That allows Eurosceptics to say, “No longer do we have to pretend there’s going to be a substantial renegotiation—we can get on with campaigning to come out.” Will the Minister pass on my thanks to the Prime Minister?

David Lidington: I am always happy to pass on compliments from my hon. Friend. I have to confess that I would have been somewhat surprised had almost anything I said been enough to satisfy him, but I am sure we will continue to have these debates in future.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby about Division No. 112 on the Scotland Bill, which took place yesterday at 8.40 pm. They have informed me that the number of those voting No was erroneously reported as 269 instead of 289. The Ayes were 56 and the Noes were 289.

BILL PRESENTED

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Duty to Investigate) (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Ann Coffey presented a Bill to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that a person who dies while deprived of their liberty under Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 shall not be considered to have died while in custody or otherwise in state detention for the purposes of section 1 of the 2009 Act; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January, and to be printed (Bill 93).

Government Departments (Decentralisation Target)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ian Austin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a target for the relocation of central Government functions, offices and staff from London to other parts of the United Kingdom; to make provision for implementation, monitoring and performance reporting against such a target; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill would ensure more balanced economic growth across the country; bring new jobs and greater prosperity to areas that have struggled to replace traditional industries they have lost; reduce pressure on the overheated London economy; and save billions of pounds to help reduce the deficit. These proposals should also be seen as a central part of the debate about devolution and improving public services, because they would improve policy making and reform the way in which public services are delivered by getting regional, local and central Government working more effectively together, bringing government closer to the people, and enabling civil servants to find out what life is like for people in Dudley and the rest of the country.
	My proposals would move the vast majority of central Government civil servants and staff of non-departmental public bodies and quangos from London, transferring 100,000 jobs from the capital to the rest of the country. They would distribute wealth more fairly across the country and make a huge contribution to the regeneration of 50 city and town centres. They would benefit London by making more than 20 million square feet of central Government real estate available for the private sector, for new business start-ups in the capital, or for conversion to desperately needed homes for people in London. They would also benefit the taxpayer by saving an initial £10 billion and ongoing annual savings of £725 million.
	We live in one of the most centralised countries in the world. According to the OECD, central Government control 72% of public expenditure here, compared with 35% in France and just 19% in Germany. Unlike in most other economies, only 2% of our taxation is raised at a local level. Government, finance, business, broadcasting, the media, culture and the arts are all concentrated here in London. As a result, investment and growth have been concentrated in the capital and stifled elsewhere. The economic outputs of seven out of eight of the UK’s largest cities consistently perform below the national average, whereas in Germany all eight of the largest cities outside Berlin outperform the national average. There is a similar picture in Sweden, Italy and France.
	The historical north-south divide has been reinforced by the dominance of finance and the weakness of manufacturing, which has benefited the capital and hit the regions hard. Those factors have distorted Government policy for decades, exacerbated the decline of the UK’s traditional industries and hampered the regions’ abilities to attract new investment and new jobs to replace them.
	Since the 1940s, there have been six attempts to decentralise Government Departments, most recently the Lyons review in 2004 and the Smith review in 2010. Hundreds of civil servants moved to Sheffield in 1979 to run the newly created Manpower Services Commission.
	The MSC, and then the Training Agency, brought many jobs to the city; David Fletcher, who led its inward investment team, said:
	“The bulk of those jobs in some way shape or form are still here. Some jobs do come and go but it’s given us a platform to build for growth.”
	Elsewhere, there were successful transfers to Bootle, Bristol, the north-west and the midlands, so there were some successes, but my proposal is much more radical.
	The proportion of the country’s civil servants located in the capital actually increased every year between 2010 and 2015. There are now 79,000 civil servants and 63,000 staff of non-departmental public bodies based in London. Despite deep cuts elsewhere in the country, there are now 5,000 more civil servants in the capital than there were in 2013.
	The capital’s civil service occupies almost 30 million square feet of space, which is equivalent to 57 London Gherkins. The average annual cost is £867 per square metre, which is more than twice the national average of £406. Worse still, newly created public bodies, such as the Government Digital Service, Health Education England and the Government Communication Service, have all been located in London and have not been joined up with the wider public sector.
	When I was a Communities and Local Government Minister in the previous Labour Government, I am sure I had meetings with fewer than 30 of the 1,000 or so civil servants who worked at Bressenden place. With email and videoconferencing, the rest could have been based anywhere else in Britain. Let us move all civil service posts that do not require regular face-to-face contact with Ministers, as well as all 24 of the newly created non-departmental bodies, all 43 regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen, and all bodies with a localism or regeneration remit, such as HS2, Visit Britain or the Homes and Communities Agency. Between 7,500 and 10,000 civil servants would remain in London, with flexible working space and meeting rooms available when needed. It would even be possible for all Ministers from different Departments, their private offices and policy people to be in one building. Imagine what that could do for cross-departmental working and getting Ministers and Departments collaborating more closely.
	Across the country, civil servants and local and regional government officers should share buildings and work together more effectively. Towns and cities could bid or submit proposals to host Departments, share services and save money. Would it not make sense to move the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the black country, this county’s manufacturing heartland; transport to Birmingham in the centre of the country; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Manchester, which has the BBC, MediaCityUK, world-beating sports teams and brilliant facilities; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Norwich?

Caroline Flint: Don’t forget Doncaster!

Ian Austin: Without forgetting, of course, Doncaster, Grimsby, Barrow, Hull and Chesterfield. Imagine how much easier it would be to improve skills and boost spending on science and technology in the midlands if central Government civil servants, local government officers, universities and industry were working closely together in the same place. Imagine how the quality of policy making would improve if central Government civil servants were based in the regions, seeing daily at first hand the problems they were trying to solve. That should also be seen as part of the devolution debate, which is taking place not just in Scotland and Wales, but in the regions of England. Local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, businesses and MPs in the west midlands are working hard to put together our combined authority bid to negotiate a devolution deal, but imagine how much more powerful the regions could be if central Government Departments were playing their full role.
	According to analysis by the New Local Government Network, the traditional way of organising public services in rigid and independent central Government Departments, separate from their local government counterparts, is becoming less effective now that there is less money to spend, an ageing population and more complex needs to respond to, so we need to find new ways of working. For example, the national health service faces a £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Social care budgets have already been hit, and they face a £3 billion funding gap by 2020. The centrally managed Work programme is failing to get sustainable jobs for nearly 70% of people who go through it, but we still face serious skills shortages in specific sectors and many parts of the country.
	The answer is to empower local people, based on a sophisticated understanding of the local community’s needs, local expertise, and collaboration between central and local government departments and the health service on meeting those needs. That is clearly a much more intelligent way to solve problems that overlap traditional and rigid Whitehall silos such as health and employment. Devolution and decentralisation would put local people in charge and remove layers of bureaucratic rules and prescriptions, so that we can develop a form of government in which flexibility, innovation and adaptation to people’s needs become the norm, not the exception.
	Finally, that would also help address the huge problem of disengagement with and distrust of London and Westminster institutions. It makes a massive difference when people can see decisions being made locally to meet their needs; it cuts through the cynicism that many people feel towards politics. My experience as Minister with responsibility for the west midlands taught me that when we listen to local people, when funds are devolved, and when central Government, local authorities, business and universities work together and are empowered to implement the answers, decisions are taken more quickly and the solutions are more effective.
	Birmingham’s brilliant new train station complex is one of the biggest city centre redevelopment programmes in the country. The runway extension in the midlands got built much more quickly than airport development projects elsewhere in the country. We also have the new Jaguar Land Rover plant. All those huge redevelopment and regeneration projects would never have got off the drawing board without Government Departments letting local authorities, the private sector and others in the west midlands exercise their leadership and use their expertise to transform the region. Those projects show what the regions are capable of doing. Imagine what more they could do to transform the country, if central Government Departments were decentralised and their functions devolved.
	Let us transform the way government works, and thereby transform the country, so that as we emerge from the recession and as our economy grows again, we do not make the mistakes of the past or leave any community behind. Let us build a stronger economy right across the country, with better skills, new industries and new jobs, and open up opportunities for people in all parts of Britain.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Ian Austin, Alison McGovern, Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Adrian Bailey, Andrew Gwynne, Caroline Flint, Chris Evans, Mr Iain Wright, Diana Johnson, John Mann, Liam Byrne and Helen Jones present the Bill.
	Ian Austin accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Trade Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Trade Union Bill, in place of paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order of 14 September 2015:
	(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to ballot thresholds for industrial action; amendments to clauses 2 and 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to information requirements in relation to industrial action; amendments to clauses 4 to 6; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to electronic and workplace balloting; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the timing and duration of industrial action; amendments to clauses 7 and 8. Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to picketing; amendments to clause 9; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 6.00 pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced. 
		
	
	(2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.—(Nick Boles.)

Kevin Brennan: I do not want to detain the House and I will not seek to divide it on this matter, but it is important to put on the record that we sought more time for the remaining stages of the Trade Union Bill, and that time has been further truncated by a lengthy statement on Europe. Suffice it to say that if the Government continue to use programme motions in this way, and insert statements to truncate debate on very controversial matters, it will only serve to weaken this place and its ability to scrutinise legislation, and to strengthen the other place, which I am sure will be very keen to scrutinise further the Bill when it arrives there after today’s proceedings.

Chris Stephens: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we sought additional time. This is a highly controversial Bill, with much media interest, and there were 50 Divisions —on all the clauses—in the Public Bill Committee. Every clause was up for debate, and the timetable for today does not allow the whole House to give every clause the same scrutiny. Ideally, we would want more protected time to discuss all such Bills, and to be able to debate all the clauses in this Bill.

Nicholas Boles: Just briefly, because I want us to use this time for the purpose for which it was intended, let me say that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows full well that, when it comes to his own contributions, what matters is quality, not quantity. He did not have the advantage of joining of us on the Public Bill Committee, but he was no doubt informed by the Opposition representative on the Committee that it finished early. We did not use the full amount of time allocated under the programme order in Committee. I believe that the Bill has received proper scrutiny.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Opposition are protesting somewhat too much. When I looked at the amendments tabled for today, I was absolutely amazed by the lack of amendments on very important parts of the Bill, which may have been discussed in Committee—[Interruption.] Opposition Members say they did not have the time; they had the time to table amendments but did not do so, and today we will not debate very significant parts of the Bill that I think should be debated.
	Question put and agreed to.

Trade Union Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 2
	 — 
	Ballots: 50% turnout requirement

Chris Stephens: I beg to move amendment 15,page1,line14, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas or responsibility.”

Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 16,in clause 3, page2,line32, at end insert—
	“(4) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 17,in clause 4, page3,line7, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 18,clause 5, page3,line31, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 19,in clause 6, page4,line5, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 20,in clause 7, page4,line14, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 21, in clause 8,page4,line29, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 7,in clause 12, page9,line26, at end insert—
	“(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
	The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the publication requirements in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
	Amendment 22,page9,line26, at end insert—
	“(13) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 8,in clause 13, page11,line4, at end insert—
	“(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
	The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to reserve powers in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
	Amendment 14,page11,line4, at end insert—
	“(14) The provisions in this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 9,in clause 14, page12,line8, at end insert—
	“(3) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
	The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
	Amendment 34,page12,line8, at end insert—
	“(3) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 31, in clause 15,page12,line19, at end insert—
	“(4) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 32, in clause 16,page13,line33, at end insert—
	“(5) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	Amendment 33, in clause 17,page14,line32, at end insert—
	“(5) The provisions of this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
	New clause 2—Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means—
	“(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
	(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
	(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
	(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
	(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
	(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
	(5) In this section—
	(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
	(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
	(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
	(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
	(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
	(b) votes cast are secret; and
	(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
	(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
	New clause 5—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action—
	“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote by electronic means for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
	(2) In this section “electronic means” means such electronic means, including means of secure voting electronically in the workplace, as is, or are determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
	(3) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (2), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
	(4) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3), a means of electronic voting satisfies “the required standard” for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
	(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
	(b) votes cast are secret; and
	(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
	(5) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
	(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
	(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf.
	(6) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).
	(7) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
	The new Clause would permit electronic voting in ballots for industrial action.
	New clause 6—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots—
	“(1) The provisions in New Clause5 [Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action] apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
	(2) The electronic means adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) must also be capable of allowing union members to vote in ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
	The new Clause would permit electronic voting in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
	New clause 7—Secure workplace ballots for industrial action—
	“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote in person at their place of work by means of a secure workplace ballot for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
	(2) In this section “secure workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. These may, but are not required to, include electronic means and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union to ensure that the required standard is satisfied, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
	(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), a workplace ballot satisfies “the required standard” if, so far as reasonably practicable—
	(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
	(b) those entitled to vote can do so in privacy;
	(c) votes cast are secret; and
	(d) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
	(4) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
	(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
	(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
	(5) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (4)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (4)(b).
	(6) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
	The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots for industrial action. These can involve electronic or non-electronic means.
	New clause 8—Secure workplace balloting and voting for trade union elections and other matters—
	“(1) The provisions in New Clause 7 [Secure workplace ballots for industrial action] shall apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
	(2) The arrangements adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) shall allow union members to vote in workplace ballots for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
	The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
	New clause 9—Methods of voting in ballots for industrial action, trade union elections and other matters—
	“(1) Voting in a ballot or election carried out to meet the requirements of the 1992 Act as amended can be carried out by postal ballot, electronic means, secure workplace ballot or a combination of these methods.
	(2) The combination of methods is to be determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot.”
	New clause 10—Application of provisions to public sector employees across the UK—
	The extent and provisions of this Bill shall only apply to the public sector in the UK,
	(a) By consent of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.
	(b) Where consent has been granted, this consent can be withdrawn at any time.”

Chris Stephens: I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 22, 14, 34 and 31 to 33 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as well as to new clause 10, with which I will begin my remarks.
	Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who led for the Labour party in the Public Bill Committee with great diligence. I welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to his place. I also pay tribute to the Conservative members of the Committee, who tried to defend the indefensible. I pay tribute to Labour members of the Committee, the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). However, the star of the show—she made the soundbite of the Public Bill Committee—was my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): she commented that the Minister had presented the Bill with great moderation but was entirely disingenuous.
	New clause 10 is a catch-all amendment that limits the extent and provisions of the Bill from applying to the public sector across the UK without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England. We took the view that, to protect our approach of working in partnership with unions, Scotland should be excluded from the entire Bill. However, having heard representations from other political parties, and indeed many from across the trade union and labour movement, we now want to restrict the extent of the Bill from applying without the consent of each devolved institution or authority which will be impacted by the changes.

Jim Cunningham: I think it is arrogant of the Government to impose the changes on local authorities. We have had three negotiations on the check-off system.

Chris Stephens: Like many others in this place, the hon. Gentleman is a former council or local authority leader. He will know that he would have negotiated with the trade unions on issues such as facility time to make sure agreements were made in time and grievances were heard in time to avoid such issues going to a tribunal. I agree with him that it is arrogant and out of order for the UK Government to make decisions—for example, in respect of facility time and check-off—that are opposed by many local authorities across the UK.
	The proposals in the Bill have the potential to undermine the effective engagement of trade unions across Scottish workplaces, and indeed across the UK, particularly in the public sector. The Scottish Government response to the “Working Together Review” and the fair work convention have shown a commitment to building a stronger, more collaborative approach to the relationship between trade unions, employees and employers. The combination of the provisions in the Bill will affect employees’ right to strike, will change the relationship between unions and organisations negatively and will lead to greater confusion among employees. That will undoubtedly hit Scottish business, especially across the public services in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
	As with many Bills in this House, the devil is reserved in the detail, and with a lot of the detail to be set out in regulations, we are unaware of what else may be coming down the line. Moreover, there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government, or indeed any other authority, to influence such regulations, even though they will have a direct impact on them.
	According to the evidence of witnesses, there is concern that the Bill could lead to a constitutional crisis if the devolved Administrations refuse to implement the content of the Bill. The Bill potentially cuts across devolved areas and could lead to confusion and a conflict of interests in its application to existing and new contracts, owing to the ongoing local government reforms in other areas. During the evidence sessions, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, commented that the new combined authorities in England will have a lot of extensions of powers, except the power to determine check-off and facility time arrangements.
	The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, stated in the “Programme for Government 2015/16”:
	“my government will vigorously oppose the UK government’s proposed trade union legislation, which seeks to undermine the rights of unions to fairly and reasonably represent their members.”
	Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, echoed those concerns when he wrote to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the Bill in September 2015, stating that it should be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
	The Scottish Government maintain positive and stable industrial relations in Scotland. Those relations are underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which was recently reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed in May 2015. The memorandum pledged the Scottish Government to work with the STUC in opposing Tory austerity and in demanding further powers for Scotland. The Scottish Government view trade unions as key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace, and the existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has described the Scottish Government’s relationship with the unions. In Committee, did the Government provide evidence of any public body having expressed a view that was different from that of the Scottish Government?

Chris Stephens: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that no evidence was presented in Committee from a public body in support of the Bill. We heard from the Tory Taliban, the TaxPayers Alliance, which was supportive of some of the measures, but no public body was.
	The restriction of the extent of the Bill would ensure that none of its provisions applied without the consent of the relevant authorities. We have tabled amendments to restrict the application of some of the provisions.

Oliver Dowden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to constituents of mine in Hertsmere, many of them hard-working commuters who will welcome the protection against unjustified strikes, why London should have a veto over these measures when they would not have a say under his proposals?

Chris Stephens: The hon. Gentleman refers to unjustified strikes. I am not aware of any unjustified strike. The notion seems to be presented by the Conservative party that low turnouts are due to lack of support. I do not think that that is the case. The case that the Government have advanced suggests that after the ballot result, trade union officials and stewards in the workplace develop mystical powers of persuasion—almost Jedi-like powers of persuasion—and with one wave of the hand can say, “This is the strike you are looking for.” That is nonsense. What was interesting in Committee, which the hon. Gentleman might want to take note of, is that passenger transport groups were very concerned about aspects of the Bill such as the provision on untrained agency workers in the transport sector.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative party was interested in having more people voting in strike ballots, it would allow electronic voting, as it did for the election of its candidate for Mayor of London, and secure workplace balloting?

Chris Stephens: I will come on to that point. I found it curious in Committee that we were advised that e-balloting was unsafe and unsecure.
	Amendment 15 would restrict the application of the provisions in clause 2 that introduce a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots in addition to the current requirement for a majority vote in favour of action. The Government’s proposals will undermine constructive employment relations throughout the United Kingdom. Effective negotiations between unions and employers rely on equal bargaining power. The ability of unions to organise lawful industrial action ensures that employers take the views of the workforce seriously and engage in genuine negotiations.
	The statutory thresholds will make it difficult for unions to organise industrial action, especially in larger workplaces and those with more dispersed workforces. As a result, the legislation is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on the ability of trade union members to take industrial action in defence of their jobs, working conditions and livelihoods.
	It is in the employers’ and employees’ interests for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. The Government’s proposals mean that disputes are more likely to become protracted. The introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions will take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure that there is the necessary turnout. That will inevitably divert time and effort from finding an amicable settlement.

Jim Cunningham: This is one of those Bills that the Tories always bring forward when they are in trouble. More importantly, a lot of it has been brought forward because the Mayor of London has not been able to handle the industrial situation. As a result, the Tories are bringing in the Bill to undermine good industrial relations in this country.

Chris Stephens: I am very sympathetic to that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Mayor of London seems to have a different attitude from other public sector bodies across the UK.

Julie Elliott: Did not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?

Chris Stephens: The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.

Chris Matheson: Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?

Chris Stephens: I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking successive interventions. I was not a member of the Bill Committee. He is talking about the application of higher thresholds for industrial action. What consideration was given in Committee to the potential for wildcat union action as a consequence of the higher thresholds, because trade union leaders might be unwilling to take a vote for fear of not meeting the threshold?

Chris Stephens: No evidence was presented that that would be the case. What was raised was the impact that the thresholds would have on women workers in progressing disputes about issues that impact on them more than on male workers, such as the introduction of shift changes. The Bill Committee did not touch on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
	According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of days lost to industrial action per year has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost to industrial action each year, compared with 7,213,000 days per year in the 1980s. In 2014, there were only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% taking place in the private sector and 45% in the public sector. Most industrial action is short-lived: in 2014, 64% of all stoppages lasted for only one or two days, with 93% of the workers taking part in the industrial action.

Lucy Frazer: I would like the answer to a question. If the amendments that would allow the Scottish Government to give their consent were accepted, would you drop your—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, would the SNP drop the other amendments as it would have a say in its own Parliament?

Angus MacNeil: Collective bargaining!

Chris Stephens: Collective bargaining, indeed.
	It is important that public bodies across the United Kingdom have a say and give their consent as to whether provisions in the Bill should be passed. I also believe that if a public body gives its consent, it should be possible for that consent to be taken away on a future occasion. The Mayor of London, to use an example that was given earlier, is perhaps the best example of that.

Alan Brown: It was good that my hon. Friend noted the difference in strike rates in lost days over the past 30 years. Does he agree that industrial relations have improved over the past 30 years and that unions are much more effective and co-operative, but that the Tories over there are stuck in an ideological argument of 30 years ago? They should move forward instead of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Chris Stephens: I agree with that. Seasoned veterans of the House will know what I mean when I say that this is Keith Joseph, phase 3. This is an ideological attack on the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation.

James Cartlidge: It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and the hon. Gentleman was a wily performer. He talks about Keith Joseph and says that we are not in the real world. I remind him that we heard evidence right at the beginning of our consideration from the chief executive of Arriva buses, who said that on a vote of 17% of the staff of his firm, 50% of all buses in London were stopped. Think of the disruption that that caused for real people out there in the real world.

Chris Stephens: The key issue was not the number of people who were balloted, but the number of fellow workers who then came out to support them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was other evidence of employee intimidation and blacklisting, and the Government need to answer that point later in our debate.
	The amendments address restrictions on facility time. Facility time is a good thing. The Royal College of Nursing—not known as the most militant trade union—believes that the Bill could lead to £100 million being lost to the NHS because of workplace issues that go to tribunal and so on. Public bodies should have the right to test the argument presented in Committee that taxpayers should be protected, because trade union members are taxpayers, and they are also voters.

Jo Stevens: Does evidence from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing not contrast spectacularly with that of a Government witness from Health 2020 who admitted when giving evidence that she did not even know what facility time was?

Chris Stephens: That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am trying to develop a theme with my questions about the Committee. I asked about thresholds and what consideration the Government gave to wildcat action. Will the hon. Gentleman speak about the restrictions on facility time and what the Government say about the potential for wildcat action if there is less time for trade unions to deal with workplace disputes?

Chris Stephens: Wildcat action was not discussed in Committee. We discussed the social media provisions that could lead—as the hon. Member for Gateshead pointed out—to wildcat tweeting, but there was no discussion about wildcat action in that sense.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. He mentioned the work of the Royal College of Nursing. Its employer, University College Hospital, said:
	“elements of the Bill that would confine trade unions’ ability to engage with us are widely viewed by NHS employers as potentially undermining of the Government’s health policy”.
	The Government want to introduce measures that will undermine health policy. To go back to Keith Joseph, he always argued that we should let managers manage. Managers want to manage in conjunction with trade unions, and the Government should butt out.

Chris Stephens: That is absolutely true. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was president of a trade union.

Joan Ryan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists are real people, and that it is not only trade unionists who object to the Bill? The Government have significantly failed to secure any substantial employer support for these proposals, and many public and private sector employees object vociferously to the Bill and see it as completely unnecessary.

Chris Stephens: The last time I looked in the mirror, yes, I am a real person, like many other trade unionists in this country.
	I am pleased that Labour amendments seek to restrict the application of provisions relating to facility time and check-off, and they will get our support. Once again, alongside the principled and substantive arguments that will no doubt be presented, it will come out that there is no mandate across the public sector for the Bill.

Angus MacNeil: Is it not strange that a Tory party that always talks to us about regulation and red tape is today introducing more regulation and more red tape, and “choking the arteries of commerce”, as was once said in a famous TV programme in Scotland? We are looking at Tory dinosaur behaviour that goes back to the 1970s.

Chris Stephens: I think it is perhaps worse than that because such behaviour comes from a political party which has a laissez-faire attitude to the economy until it comes to the trade union movement. It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with no intervening periods whatsoever.

Madeleine Moon: Is not a prime example of the unnecessary bureaucracy and complication of the Bill the arbitrary powers that are given to the certification officer for monitoring picketing? That is guaranteed to find failings and create fines.

Chris Stephens: It is even worse and goes even wider than that. Trade unions will be expected to make a contribution to the certification officer, but they will not be allowed to contribute to check-off, because that is to be banned across the board in the public sector.
	New clause 2 would ensure that employers have a duty to ensure that union members can vote without fear of interference or constraint. That same duty is imposed on unions, and it is about what happens when an employer fails to comply with those duties by intercepting voting papers or emails relating to the ballot.

Paula Sherriff: Does the hon. Gentleman share my feelings of irony that the Government have stated that trade union members will not be allowed to vote in an electronic ballot, yet they considered that to be perfectly legitimate for the London mayoral selection?

Chris Stephens: I agree with the hon. Lady, and that point was raised in Committee. We were told by Conservative Members that e-balloting is unsafe and insecure—I do not know what that means for the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. It came out that a trade union could email an employer and the police about picketing. Presumably that is safe and secure.

Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about stewards having to register with the police and wear armbands just as they did in the 1930s in the occupied territories in Europe?

Chris Stephens: We will discuss that at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman’s point is about the increased capacity for blacklisting that is contained in the Bill, and I agree with him.

Margaret Greenwood: rose—

Chris Stephens: May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.
	New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.
	The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.
	Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.
	According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.

Andy McDonald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.

Chris Stephens: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

Rachael Maskell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?

Chris Stephens: I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.
	Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.
	An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace.
	Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.
	We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:
	“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.

Madeleine Moon: The issue is not about online safety and security: the Government hope that people will not be bothered to buy a stamp, put it on an envelope and walk to the letterbox. That is the issue—not security. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Chris Stephens: I do, and one of the increasing problems with postal balloting is the number of post boxes, which has fallen by 17% in Scotland in the last year.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill risks throwing away much of the positive industrial relations that have been established by trade unions, work that they do day in and day out? One problem is that the media likes conflict, but the bread and butter tasks of the trade unions include spotting and defusing issues before they become problems. Merseyside Fire Brigades Union told me that its employers described its union reps as their best but lowest paid managers, such is their contribution to positive industrial relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we risk losing all that?

Chris Stephens: I agree with the hon. Lady. Without question, the Bill is ideological. Under a veneer of moderation, it is an ideological attack on a large section of society that stands up against exploitation.

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the Bill is ideological. Is it ideological for people who send their children to schools in my constituency who cannot get childcare during an unjustified strike with a very low turnout in a ballot? Is it ideological for hard-pressed commuters in my constituency who cannot get to work because of strikes called on ballots with low turnouts?

Chris Stephens: The problem with that analysis is that it is based on ignorance. The simple fact is that if a ballot has a low turnout, a trade union has to make a calculation. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is a former Unison president, can confirm that trade unions have, on occasion, not proceeded to industrial action if they do not have support for it. The biggest gamble that a trade union takes when it decides to take industrial action is how many people participate. If people do not participate, the industrial action falls and dies.

Dawn Butler: The contribution from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) highlights the lack of understanding of the role of trade unions and of people who are working just to pay their bills. That lack of understanding shows why this Bill is so wrong.

Chris Stephens: It also shows complete ignorance of the principle of solidarity. Many of the people who are affected by industrial action, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) described, will be fellow trade union members.

Ruth Smeeth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the average time lost to strike action last year was less than a third of a second per member of the workforce?

Chris Stephens: Yes, and that evidence also came out in Committee. What is the great industrial chaos in this country that means that the Government need to intervene? There is none—

Oliver Dowden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Chris Stephens: For entertainment purposes, I will take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Dowden: I shall try to entertain the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that turnout is so high for all these industrial actions, why is he so concerned about having a threshold that requires four out of 10 trade unionists to turn out and vote? If turnouts are high, where is the problem?

Ian Lavery: What was your vote? You wouldn’t have been elected.

Natascha Engel: Order. No shouting out. If Members want to intervene, they should stand up and do so.

Chris Stephens: I will give the hon. Member for Hertsmere the benefit of my trade union experience. In localised disputes about local issues, turnouts go through the roof, in my experience. Lower turnouts usually happen in national, UK-wide disputes. Those issues can lead to low turnouts, but the key test is how well the trade union is organised. Turnout will be a lot higher in some areas than in others in such disputes.

Joan Ryan: The point about commuters was made earlier, although the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) may not have been listening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said, the transport strikes that are often prayed in aid of the Bill would have all crossed the threshold and were all legitimate strikes.

Chris Stephens: That is right.

Julie Elliott: If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.

Chris Stephens: I agree, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. If the Government were so concerned about participation, they would allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting. If secure workplace balloting is good enough for recognition agreements, surely it is good enough for many of the other issues that trade union members have to decide on.
	We were told in Committee that we cannot have online voting until 2020. Ministers have claimed that the Speaker’s Commission on digital democracy concluded that online voting could not be achieved before 2020, but it was concerned only with online voting in general or local elections, not trade union or any other ballots. The Commission reported on evidence from the Open Rights Group, which argues that online balloting in the context of a general election is far less transparent than ballot box voting. These arguments do not apply to trade union ballots, which are counted by the scrutineer in private.

Paula Sherriff: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that trade unions prevent a significant amount of sickness absence in the workplace? I was a shop steward in a hospital for a number of years. By fostering good relationships between trade union members and management, I am confident we reduced significantly that burden on the workplace.

Chris Stephens: Yes, with my trade union experience I do agree with that. I would happily say that the best education I had was from the trade union movement, particularly, for example, when someone had a condition that came under the scope of the Equality Acts. I agree with every word that has been said.

Alan Brown: As has been said, my hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He will agree that very important points have been made about the double whammy on thresholds and not allowing online or secure workplace voting. Without being flippant, does he think the Government have assessed the risk of secure workplace balloting when it comes to English votes for English laws? There might actually be a risk of SNP Members voting on English laws after all, because the balloting might not be secure enough.

Chris Stephens: Indeed. I look forward to that test when the experiment, as I think Mr Speaker described it, takes place.
	The Open Rights Group is also concerned that online voting in general elections does not justify the extra expense of developing new systems while the technology is in its infancy, as turnout is already comparatively high. This argument does not apply to trade union ballots, where postal balloting is more expensive and deters turnout. Unlike general election voting, the technology already exists and has been well used for over a decade by private companies, political parties and membership associations.

John Howell: The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many an anecdote about this, both in Committee and elsewhere. He will recall that in Committee I raised a number of concerns from the Open Rights Group which called for prudence in the use of internet voting. Has he looked at that in greater detail?

Chris Stephens: The hon. Gentleman is right. I found it curious that when I googled my name I got a link to his website and it was the exchange that we had in Committee. In fairness, the same thing happens with the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). The Open Rights Group is saying that trade union ballots do not apply in these cases, because there is the additional safety of a scrutineer and so on.
	We are told that trade union ballots should be subject to tighter regulation than elections for officeholders in private businesses or non-governmental organisations. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They should also rerun the election for the Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.
	Labour’s amendments on balloting are in a similar vein. They can be broadly supported, as their intentions mirror that of our amendment. We are asking Members to vote for our catch-all amendments to make this draconian, Dickensian Bill a little bit better.

Jonathan Djanogly: I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 9. In overall terms and despite the heat coming out of the Bill, I think we can all agree that we have moved a very long way in industrial relations and strike laws towards consensus and away from the polarisation we saw in the early 1980s.
	The Trade Union Act 1984 requirement for compulsory industrial action ballots to be put in place for there to be statutory immunity was a very significant step, although it did cement the rather odd situation whereby there is, technically, no right to strike. Rather, we give unions in certain circumstances statutory immunity for the tort—civil wrong—of inducing a breach of the employment contract. That being as it may, I think we can all agree that voting before a strike is vital, and that the vote itself should be carried out in a free and fair manner that reduces, so far as possible, any chance of coercion, threat or intimidation to the voter. It is certainly the case that the Bill addresses ballots insofar as voter turnout requirements and how the questions are put, but it does not address the question of how the ballot itself is physically conducted. This is now being put to the test by the Opposition in their amendments. New clause 7 argues for secure workplace ballots and new clause 5 suggests implementing electronic voting in ballots for strike action.
	My first observation is that those two concepts do not necessarily sit very well together. Namely, if the Opposition believe that e-voting is the future and the way to go, why are they proposing returning votes to the place of work? The problem is actually more profound, of course. The security of a postal vote sent to a person’s home does remove a large area of risk in terms of intimidation that could attach to returning votes to the workplace. The benefits of the 1984 ballots and the use of post were hard won. They have been of great benefit to working people; not perhaps to the union organiser or the militant activist, but to the everyday working man and woman who has benefited from being able to reflect calmly on the merits of a strike ballot in the safety of their own home.

Jo Stevens: The hon. Gentleman refers to intimidation when people cast their ballot. Does he have any real examples of intimidation in ballots?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am not here to accuse anyone. If the hon. Lady thinks that the 1984 legislation was introduced because there were no instances of intimidation at that time, we need to go back to the history books. I do not intend to do that today. I am not saying that postal ballots will always be free from intimidation, particularly if several members of the same family work in the same place. I appreciate that new clause 7 requires that votes at the workplace are private and free from unfairness, but the question is how far does that go? Does it cover only the voting room or the factory premises? What about beyond the factory gates and the pickets? I am concerned that this could be a retrograde step.

Andy McDonald: The hon. Gentleman talks about intimidation in the workplace. He is a lawyer. Let us have some evidence to back that up, rather than just putting it out there and casting aspersions. Get on and give us some evidence.

Jonathan Djanogly: As I said before, we are looking at the optimum way of voting. The Opposition’s new clause 9 provides for the possibility of a combination of voting methods to be used, but I note that the combination is to be selected by the union. Unless I have read it wrong —someone might want to put me right—this could imply that workplace-only ballots could, in effect, be reintroduced via the back door. Again, I would see that as a step backwards that should not be supported.
	On electronic voting, it could be said that this is where society is heading, a point made very strongly by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and that union law should take the lead on something that will be generally adopted. I have not seen the most recent opinions of the Electoral Commission on e-voting, but I recall that it had serious concerns about its security a few years ago. Will the Minister please advise the House to what extent he has discussed this with the Electoral Commission, and whether he has reviewed the role of the certification officer with that of the Electoral Commission in the conduct of ballots? In that regard, if in the future we wished to move towards electronic voting generally, could this be effective for unions under existing legislation, such as the provisions in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004? In other words, are the e-voting amendments required at all?
	If only because of the technological changes, this has been a useful debate. However, I am not yet convinced, in terms of security, that the proposals are the correct way to go at the current time.

Kevin Brennan: I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union and Unite, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	This group contains our new clauses 5 to 9 and amendments 7 to 9. It is good to return to the Bill after a jam-packed Committee stage, as it is clear from reading the proceedings that the Government did not provide sufficient time. The Minister said earlier that the proceedings finished early, but neglected to tell the House that they had run late the night before because the Government were afraid there was not enough time to conclude proceedings. He missed that bit out.
	Despite that, my hon. Friends on the Committee did a remarkable job, under severe time constraints, and I want to pay tribute to them. I am sure that other hon. Friends on the Committee will forgive me if I especially praise my Cardiff neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who meticulously picked apart the Bill from the Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), who, despite her status as a new Member, brought her tremendous expertise and experience to bear in exposing the Bill for what it really is—an attack on the ability of trade unions to perform their proper role on behalf of their members, coupled with a grubby attempt to use a mandate acquired from 38% of those who voted in the general election in order to interfere with the funding of the main Opposition party. Their Cardiff constituents will be proud of my hon. Friends’ efforts to oppose this pernicious Bill. I only hope that I can add a little to their enormous efforts on behalf of working people and democracy.

Dawn Butler: This oppressive Bill will particularly affect women, as three quarters of trade union members are women. The Government talk about aggression, but the only aggression is coming from them and their attack on the rights of working people.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember as a young boy how my mother’s trade union helped her when she got a hernia from lifting tables as a dinner lady. Without its help, she would never have got the support she needed, and might even have lost her job. That experience of what trade unions actually do is something that Government Members often do not understand.

James Cartlidge: Talking about women, who do we seriously think is most affected when schools close because of ballots with low support? In Committee, we heard about the effect of school closures in 2011 on millions of parents. In most cases, those strikes had the support of well under 40%.

Kevin Brennan: I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman wants higher turnouts in ballots and so will be supporting our new clauses and amendments allowing for workplace balloting and e-balloting.

Paula Sherriff: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the Bill is that it is being applied retrospectively? Five million long-standing union members will have their political fund subscriptions cancelled without their permission or that of their union. It is no wonder the Government want to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Kevin Brennan: I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by straying from the amendments, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the retrospective elements are particularly pernicious.
	Governments should refrain from retrospective legislation. I cannot believe, either, that the time periods were recommended by officials. When I was a Minister in the Department, any time period for consultation on a major change to a system involving business was always at least 18 months, so I am shocked if officials have advised Ministers that two months is sufficient.

Tulip Siddiq: The Government have often used the rhetoric of fairness in trying to conceal their savage attack on workers’ rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals to replace striking staff with agency staff are draconian? This measure was banned almost 10 years before I was born.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will have a chance to develop her point further when we debate that very matter.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) talked about people voting in the safety of their own homes. Will my hon. Friend comment on that? It was a slur on trade unions and employers, because it implied that electronic or workplace voting was not secure and that unions and employers bullied people. That is not my experience of how unions conduct themselves and their ballots.

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, workplace ballots take place all the time, as other hon. Members have pointed out, and have to be independently scrutinised and verified as fulfilling all the statutory requirements for fairness. So it is absolute nonsense to imply that there is anything unsafe about it.

Derek Twigg: I agree that this is a terrible attack on trade unions and their rights, but we also have not yet heard any evidence of a serious problem, which proves again that the Bill is a straightforward attack on the trade union movement.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right. This is just what Tory Governments do, regardless of the evidence. They have not presented any evidence. I have read through the Committee proceedings and looked at the evidence given, but there is no evidence to support the changes in the Bill. It is a knee-jerk instinct, and that is greatly to be regretted.
	We tabled many amendments in Committee, but, rather surprisingly, the Government did not accept any of them, despite the cogency of my hon. Friends’ arguments and their excellent drafting. We have therefore had to submit further new clauses. In answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), I have to say he has been in the House a long time and is very experienced. He knows that Report is not a repeat of Committee and that, given the extremely truncated time limit, it is necessary to focus on a small number of items. That makes no difference to the fact that in Committee we made clear our fundamental disagreement with the Bill in almost every respect.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman says he does not have enough time, but how could he come to this place today having not tabled amendments on, for instance, trade union funding or the vote percentages? Everyone, including all the union members who have written to Members, has been talking about these things, yet there is not a single amendment dealing with any of them.

Kevin Brennan: There were many amendments in Committee, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find there is not enough time to discuss those amendments that have been tabled, let alone additional items. However, if he wants to lobby his Ministers and Whips for more time so that we can put down more amendments, I would welcome that.
	New clauses 5 would permit electronic voting in trade union ballots for industrial action, and new clause 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic voting in all other statutory elections and ballots, including elections of general secretaries and political fund ballots. Throughout the Committee stage, the Government sought to dress up the Bill as some kind of modernisation, but their continued refusal to introduce e-balloting alongside secure workplace balloting clearly demonstrated they were not serious about modernisation. Online balloting can be as safe and secure as any other form of balloting, and is already used for a variety of purposes in the public and private sectors, including at J. P. Morgan Asset Management, Lloyd’s of London, Chevron and, of course, the Conservative party itself, which recently selected its London mayoral candidate by e-balloting.
	If Ministers’ reason for resisting e-balloting in the Bill seriously was fraud and concern about what the Speaker’s commission said about voting in parliamentary elections, why would they employ the very same method in their own party elections? We all know that the real fraud is the fraudulent argument of Ministers. In reality, they want to discourage turnout and make the thresholds harder to reach. That is rule 1 from the Tory party political playbook: disfranchise those who might disagree with it.

Ruth Smeeth: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has not been a single case of fraud in online or workplace balloting, and that of the seven cases of bullying, harassment and other fraud taken to appeal, not one was upheld?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right, and she probably also knows that most of those complaints about the conduct of ballots were made by trade unions themselves. I was going to make that point later, but perhaps there is no need to now.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend has noted that none of the reasonable amendments put forward by Labour and other Members have been accepted. What does he make of the fact that combined authorities throughout England have stood in opposition to the fundamentals of this Bill, while the First Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones stood up in the Assembly in Cardiff today and said he would oppose it? This shows that there is no respect and no attempt to find any consensus whatever.

Kevin Brennan: So much for the respect agenda, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that those outside this place will look in bemusement at the argument that sitting in front of a PC and voting electronically will not be safe?

Kevin Brennan: Precisely, and I shall develop that a little further in a few moments. Under our proposals, electronic or workplace ballots would be overseen by an independent scrutineer, and before the ballots run, that scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method met the required standard, that all members entitled to vote had the opportunity to do so and that votes were cast in secret with the risk of any unfairness or malpractice minimised. That is the same standard as set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. None of that, however, matters to Ministers.

Julie Elliott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he said in Committee, the provisions in this Bill fly in the face of every other bit of legislation that this Government have brought forward, whether it be using online means to apply for benefits, filling in tax forms or anything else? It is entirely at odds with everything else this Government are doing.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I had not quite finished the sentence, but I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

Stephen Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend who is doing an excellent job as shadow Minister. He will know that I am transmogrified in my position, but it is a delight to be here speaking on this Bill again. Is not the greatest irony the fact that one of the architects of this Bill, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, stands up at the Dispatch Box at Cabinet Office questions extolling the virtues of the Government Digital Service and the digitalisation of online services in lots of highly secure and complex matters? That same Minister is one of the architects of this Bill, which does not allow e-balloting.

Kevin Brennan: One is not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this House, so “irony” was the correct word for my hon. Friend to use.
	As I was saying, none of this seems to matter to Ministers. Our new clauses also require unions to use postal ballots alongside electronic and workplace voting, where necessary, to ensure that everyone has a chance to vote and that members who may be absent from work due to sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave will be able to vote. None of that matters to Ministers either. Our new clause allows unions to provide members with a choice of voting methods, including postal and electronic voting, and employers would be under a duty to ensure that union members can vote free from interference or constraints. The use of faster and more efficient balloting methods could also assist in the earlier resolution of disputes as ballots and subsequent negotiations would take place more quickly. But you’ve guessed it—none of this matters to Ministers.
	I am sure that this Minister is going to trot out his line that he is not against e-balloting in principle, but that the Speaker’s Commission provided evidence of concerns about safety. However, the Open Rights Group’s evidence was based on comparison between general election voting in polling stations and online voting; it made no comment on the safety and security of wider forms of online voting. In any case, the commission’s report concluded that e-balloting should be available for all electors by 2020. The Minister could easily have allowed for the option for regulations to be laid within this legislation, which would permit e-balloting to commence when any concerns he had were satisfied.
	There is no genuine reason whatever why trade unions should be the only organisations in the UK that are required by legislation to use postal-only ballots for elections and ballots. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They will not, because they are not genuinely concerned. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manage over 2,000 secure online ballots annually, and a recent report concluded that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. In any case, union elections and ballots are more tightly regulated than voting systems used by other organisations, meaning even less chance of a problem.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He says there is no reason, but if we look back to when the legislation was introduced in the 1980s, there was a reason. People were told then that ballots of this nature would deliver the turnouts, but why is this being pushed? It is a huge cost on the trade unions, so even if a union got the answer it wanted in a ballot, it would have cost a fortune to run that ballot, undermining the union’s capacity to work.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly one of the Government’s motivations behind these amendments.
	Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots. Workplace ballots of this nature are secure and are overseen by the qualified independent persons, who are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots. Well over 200 ballots for statutory recognition have been held, a quarter of which involve a combination ballot, including both workplace ballots and postal ballots for those absent from work when the ballot is taking place. An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout was significant higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace, with an 88% average turnout, compared with 71% in postal ballots. There is no evidence that workers felt pressurised by this. In fact, people were less likely to vote for union recognition in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. As was pointed out, the Central Arbitration Committee has received only a handful of complaints, most of which were made by the unions, rather than individuals.
	New clause 9 would allow trade unions to decide what balloting to use—balloting by electronic means, workplace ballots, postal ballots or any combination of those. Given the severe time constraints, which we have already discussed, it is not possible for us to divide this afternoon on all our new clauses on e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, but I want to place clearly on record our view that the Government’s failure to accept our very reasonable modernisation proposals, which would enhance trade union democracy, invites detailed further scrutiny of these issues in the other place. E-balloting and secure workplace ballots are distinct issues in their own right, but we recognise that, due to the Government’s timetabling, we are unable to vote on all our new clauses and amendments separately on Report without curtailing debate on other important issues in the Bill.
	Our amendment 7 should be read in tandem with amendments 8 and 9, all of which relate to this Bill’s undermining of the devolution settlement and conflict with the Government’s own professed localism agenda. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions do not apply to services that are either wholly or partly devolved to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, English local authorities and the Mayor of London.

Chris Stephens: The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) managed to ascertain from the UK Government that a UK Government Minister would decide the facility time for health workers in Scotland and Wales. Does the shadow Minister think that is fair?

Kevin Brennan: I am coming on in a few moments to talk about the so-called respect agenda, and I hope that I will then answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our amendments would ensure that devolved Administrations could decide how best to engage with their staff and trade unions when delivering devolved public services, rather than being subject to a highly partisan central diktat—I believe this what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—from a Government in possession of no mandate in many parts of the UK.
	I can recall the Prime Minister travelling to Wales when he was first elected, and declaring that when it came to Wales and the other devolved Administrations, he would govern on the basis of respect. He called that his “respect agenda”. With that promise in mind, the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill and its complete lack of respect for the role of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. He pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, ruled that depending on a UK Government Bill’s impact on devolved services, it could be subject to a legislative consent motion, even if it could also be classified as relating to matters that were otherwise reserved. Our Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, wrote today to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, calling for a legislative consent motion; she has also called for Scottish local authorities, regardless of political persuasion, to refuse to implement changes when there is no consent.
	I want to make it clear that our commitment to solidarity for all workers means that Labour opposes the Bill on behalf of workers and trade unions throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that simply devolving employment and industrial relations—for example, to Scotland—would play into the Conservative Government’s hands, and would result in a race to the bottom on workplace rights and privatisation, which could only have a detrimental impact on workers throughout the UK.

Jonathan Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Welsh Government will present a legislative consent motion in relation to Wales? I can assure him that he will have the support of Plaid Cymru if they do.

Kevin Brennan: I think that I would be equally guilty of arrogance were I to assume the role of devolved Ministers in the Welsh Government. However, the letter from the First Minister clearly indicated that a legislative consent motion was under consideration.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, made it clear in his oral evidence to the Select Committee that he, too, was considering the matter. He also said today that the Bill, unamended, was
	“an all-out assault on the devolution settlement”.

Kevin Brennan: I am always slightly nervous when I give way to my hon. Friend, because his expertise on all these matters is so thorough. He is absolutely right.

Alan Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. Is he aware that the Bill is opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, whose human resources spokesperson is none other than a Conservative councillor by the name of Billy Hendry?

Kevin Brennan: If that is the case, it does not surprise me, although it might surprise some Members. I should have thought most Conservatives would believe that arrangements entered into voluntarily, at a local level, between an employer and employees should not be interfered with by central Government. I should have thought that that was in the DNA of Conservative principles. Surely Conservatives believe that voluntary arrangements and transactions between parties that are entered into freely, and are not immoral or criminal, should not be tinkered with by central Government. That is what is extraordinary about some of the provisions in the Bill, which illustrate the blinkered nature of the Government’s views on trade unions and their role in our society.

Jim Cunningham: Taken in conjunction with the Government’s wish to pull out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the cuts in legal aid, the Bill constitutes a direct attack not only on the trade union movement, but on the general public in general terms.

Kevin Brennan: I am sure that many of those human rights implications will be examined further in the other place, although the unfortunate time constraints prevent us from doing so here. No doubt many of those in the other place will consider the Bill with a great deal of interest.
	Under current legislation, trade union workplace representatives have a right to reasonable paid time off to perform duties, which has huge benefits for employees and employers alike. Clause 13 could allow the Government to set a cap on the percentage of the employer’s pay bill that could be invested in facility time. It would also give the Government power to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of time that union officials could spend not just negotiating improved pay and conditions, but training, promoting learning opportunities for the workforce, accompanying people to grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and carrying out health and safety duties.
	Furthermore, as was pointed out in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the clause establishes a democratic deficit. First, Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to restrict or repeal trade union rights, so this place will have no opportunity to amend that legislation. Secondly, the clause will prevent democratically elected devolved Administrations from deciding how to manage their employment relations in their workplaces, and how to engage with their own staff. Thirdly, it will enable the Government to pick and choose politically which local authorities it will force to impose a cap. That is an extremely dangerous precedent.

Kirsten Oswald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “reserved powers” elements of the Bill show that the Government intend to use that opportunity?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do not think that those provisions would be in the Bill if the Government did not intend to use them. Parliament should not grant the Government those reserved powers on any assumption other than the assumption that they intend to use them. Conservative Members should think very carefully about what they are granting in this Bill.
	There are significant questions to be asked about the legal basis of such a change in relation to European Union law on health and safety representatives, on the rights of trade union representatives to facility time during consultations on collective redundancies, on outsourcing, and on rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation conventions. Moreover, according to research commissioned in 2007 by the Department of Trade and Industry—now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—workplaces with facility arrangements have lower voluntary exit rates, which leads to significant savings in recruitment costs.

Cat Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts in facility time, along with the employment tribunal charges, will deter women from pursuing cases of maternity discrimination? The number of those cases is apparently rising, but women have not been receiving justice recently.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is quite right. Other Members have also drawn attention to the degree to which the Bill discriminates against women in the workplace.

Jo Stevens: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I will give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

Jo Stevens: Is my hon. Friend aware of any other cases in which the Government have retrospectively interfered in private agreements between consenting parties in order to undo them?

Kevin Brennan: My research may have been inadequate, but I have not come across any such examples. However, the Minister must have dozens. Surely he would not single out one particular group in society for this draconian treatment unless he were meting out such treatment to other organisations as well.

Lucy Frazer: rose—

Kevin Brennan: Oh! The hon. and learned Lady has an example.

Lucy Frazer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when an employer and an employee enter into a contract, it is agreed between them that the employee will turn up for work and will not engage with others to disrupt the employment—[Interruption.] May I finish? The unions’ power to engage in collective activity is an exception to that principle—an exception that must be exercised only in circumstances in which it is justifiable and legitimate.

Kevin Brennan: I understand the basis on which, under our law, it has, for more than 100 years, been possible to undertake industrial action lawfully. The hon. and learned Lady may well know that it was a judgment in the part of the world that I represent—along with my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Cardiff Central—that, more than 100 years ago, led to the requirement for changes to ensure that, as in any civilised democratic society, working people had the right to withdraw their labour if they were involved in a trade dispute. I hope the hon. and learned Lady is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there should not be that right. As I said earlier, if she was serious about wanting more people to be involved in decisions around trade disputes—in balloting and so on—she would support our new clauses and amendments, which allow for workplace balloting and e-balloting, and easier access to democracy for the people she purports to speak about.

Rachael Maskell: Does my hon. Friend agree that having facility time improves industrial relations in the workplace and therefore lessens industrial action?

Kevin Brennan: I agree; there is plenty of evidence that it saves money and facilitates good industrial relations. It is draconian and illiberal of the Government to interfere in voluntary agreements between employers and employees by means of central diktat in this way, and as regards their reputation, I believe that they will live to regret that.

Chris Stephens: Surely the biggest impact on individual contracts will be where it is written into employees’ contracts that they can have their trade union subscription deducted from their salary. The cost of that to other public sector employers will be considerable, as they will have to issue new contracts.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman must be a mind-reader; I am coming on to that shortly.

Iain Wright: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose expertise it will be interesting to hear.

Iain Wright: Following on from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), does the shadow Minister agree that the hallmarks of a good, productive, innovative economy are collaborative, harmonious industrial relations? The likes of Airbus with Unite, and Community throughout the beleaguered steel industry, will help to make sure that we can stay competitive. Trade unions are good for not just individual workers but for a modern, productive economy.

Kevin Brennan: Yes, and they would be part of an industrial strategy if this Government believed in one, but instead, the Government are basically walking across the street to pick a fight where no provocation exists.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Brennan: Let me make a bit more progress, because I want other colleagues to have an opportunity to participate in this section of the debate.
	Negotiations between employers and unions can play a very positive role in workplaces. The Welsh Government realised the value of such benefits, and based relations with trade unions on a partnership approach. As Carwyn Jones said in his letter,
	“it cannot be right for the UK Government—blind to policy priorities and devolved service delivery reforms in Wales—to specify how much union ‘facility time’ devolved public sector employers should allow. Nor am I convinced that the intention to end ‘check off’ arrangements for trade union subscriptions in the public sector is necessary or appropriate. The Welsh Government operates these arrangements as part of its approach to effective social partnership and is not seeking to change this.”
	Despite this, the Tory Government plough on. This is not the agenda of respect. This is an attitude of contempt towards devolved Administrations. Since I have referred to “check off”, I will now move on to amendment 9—

Joan Ryan: rose—

Kevin Brennan: —but prior to moving on, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

Joan Ryan: I rise to offer my hon. Friend support. Some 60 local councils and NHS organisations agree with the point he is making on behalf of Carwyn Jones. The leader of Enfield Council has said:
	“It would seem rather farcical to expect a Council to develop efficient organisational structures, internal employee consultation and negotiation systems, and deliver million pound services to the public but deny its right to set the level of facility time appropriate to meeting these objectives.”

Kevin Brennan: The leader of the council has put it succinctly and appropriately.

Jim Cunningham: I have been both a shop steward and the leader of a council, so I have seen this from both sides. Let me explode the myth: most good employers in big companies will say that facility time saves them money; they do not want hundreds of their employees disrupting the foreman when he is organising production. It is apparent that those on the Conservative Benches do not have any experience of industrial relations or employment practices.

Kevin Brennan: If it was felt there had been abuse in some areas, that could be dealt with, but to legislate to outlaw something of this kind is shocking. Yet that is, in effect, what the Government are doing.

Tom Blenkinsop: The point is that under the law, a human resources director of a large company would still have to consult individuals. Through collective consultation, a lot of agreements can be made very quickly; the union can communicate with its members very quickly and negotiate with an HR director. With this legislation, an HR director will have to go round to every single employee. We are talking about the NHS, and councils that have several thousand employees. That will cost vast amounts of money, take vast amounts of time and leave the Government and those employees in a really peculiar situation in which they could be taken to judicial review.

Kevin Brennan: As ever, my hon. Friend brings his vast experience of these matters to bear in the debate.
	Our amendment 9 would ensure that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to services that were wholly or partly devolved. In Committee, the Government introduced a new clause—it is now clause 14 of the Bill—to prevent all public sector employers from deducting union subscriptions via the payroll. The proposed ban is clearly designed to target union finances and to make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. Under the clause, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector.
	The Government claim that that will save the taxpayer £6 million, but many unions already cover the cost of check-off services. There is a real risk that if the ban on check-off services comes into effect, the Government— and therefore the taxpayer—will actually incur costs, potentially including legal costs arising from the need to compensate trade union members for the loss of their contractual right to have their union subscription deducted at source.
	The proposed ban on check-off arrangements has been introduced without consultation with employers, without engagement with the unions and without any proper assessment of its impact on employment relations. It was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto or in the Queen’s Speech, and there was no reference to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the impact assessments that accompanied the Bill. I note the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Members on this matter in amendments that we will consider later today.

Kirsten Oswald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when many organisations already make provision for payroll deductions for credit unions, charitable giving, cycle schemes and for many other purposes, it is an absolute farce for the Government to suggest that it places a burden on such organisations to make deductions for trade union subscriptions?

Kevin Brennan: I have to disagree with the hon. Lady: it is a tragedy rather than a farce that the Government are doing this. I understand the point that she makes.

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend has already punched holes in the figure of £6 million and the calculations that underpin it. Does he agree that if the Government are to have any credibility, they should also publish an estimate of the extra costs that the taxpayer will be landed with as a result of the increasing unrest and decreasing co-operation that these ridiculous arrangements might engender in the public sector workforce?

Kevin Brennan: I do indeed. My hon. Friend represents an area that has many trade union members, and he is absolutely right. It is shocking that the Government have not published those figures. I hope that the Minister has deep pockets, because he might well have to dip into them when he finds out how much this policy is going to cost.

Jeremy Lefroy: Some councils actually make money from check-off arrangements. One or two examples have been given to me of councils not only repaying the costs of check-off but getting extra funding that supports council services.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, he has put his finger on the matter in his amendment, which we will discuss later. His intervention now has drawn to my attention the point that the state should not be interfering in this kind of voluntary transaction, which is entered into freely by all the parties concerned and which is neither illegal nor immoral. What is wrong with an employer in the private or public sectors voluntarily agreeing to help to collect trade union subscriptions, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with its employees, in exchange for an administrative payment? In what other field would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction of this kind? The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on spotting that flaw, and the basic illiberalism, at the heart of this measure in the Bill.

Chris Stephens: I, too, disagree slightly with the shadow Minister: I do not think this is a tragedy; I think it is sinister. In a collective bargaining unit that had a staff association alongside a trade union, it would be permissible for the staff association subs, but not the trade union subs, to be collected from people’s salaries. Is that not biased?

Kevin Brennan: I am not going to escalate our dispute as to whether this is a farce, a tragedy or simply sinister, but the hon. Gentleman is right.

Tom Blenkinsop: In Committee, we raised this issue about other things that can be collected centrally by an HR department or the payroll. For example, some members of staff may be chartered accountants or nurses who pay for their qualifications on an annual basis through their payroll, and that would not be affected but their trade union membership of course would be.

Kevin Brennan: It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.
	This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.
	In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. It is any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.

Rachael Maskell: Does my hon. Friend agree that this further complicates the situation in the health environment when people pay not only a levy for the industrial support of a trade union, but a professional levy that goes towards the professional support they have with their work?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend highlights the lack of thought, consultation and proper scrutiny that has gone into this proposal. It is unravelling by the minute as hon. Members bring their expertise to bear on the implications that it has out there in the real world.
	Let me draw attention to some of the other amendments in this group. The Scottish National party has tabled a raft of amendments, some of which were moved in Committee. I understand that the SNP may wish to divide the House on new clause 2, which is in the spirit of our new clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Given the time available, if the SNP does that, we will support it in lieu of our new clauses—the same applies in respect of new clause 10. At that point, I should allow somebody else an opportunity.

Lucy Frazer: Trade unions play an important role in protecting the rights of employees: through their collective power, they have the ability to balance the scales against an employer, who invariably has greater economic and social power than the employees in its workforce. Last week, I met a few trade union officials from my constituency, and was struck by the passion and desire they have to do their job in representing others. But therein lies the crux of this legislation: it is a union’s job to represent its workforce, so its actions must represent their wishes.
	It is important that when a union has the power to bring a school, hospital or factory to a temporary standstill, its actions actually reflect the will of its members. I say that for three reasons.

Rachael Maskell: rose—

Lucy Frazer: I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my argument a little further. First, those who suffer most in a strike are not the employees or employers but the public. The employees do not suffer, because any loss of income from the strike may well be covered by the union. The employers of the large concern do not suffer, because they will be paid their salary in any event. It is the public, and only the public, who suffer, first as the consumer and later, when the bill comes in, as the taxpayer. The public end up picking up the tab for both sides.
	In the winter of discontent, the main victims of the low pay offensive in the public service were the old, the sick, the bereaved, children and the poor. It is not only this Government who have made the point that it is right that action by a trade union should reflect the mood of its members. The need for democratic accountability by the union was also recognised by the Labour Government. Their White Paper in 1998 entitled “Fairness at Work” specifically drew attention to the need for accountability:
	“Laws on picketing, on ballots before industrial action and for increasing democratic accountability in trade unions have all helped to improve employment relations. They will stay.”
	It is for that reason that it is right that these measures, which are right as a matter of principle, should apply to the whole of the UK .

Tom Blenkinsop: That legislation was brought in during Baroness Thatcher’s period of Government. Is the hon. and learned Lady saying that she was wrong, incorrect or flawed in any way for bringing in that legislation?

Lucy Frazer: The legislation that we have at any time must reflect the position of the country at the time. This is the place in which we find ourselves, and this is the Bill that is right for the moment.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Lucy Frazer: I will not give way, as I wish to press on.
	I was not a member of the Bill Committee, but I have read some of the submissions on this issue from the unions. The Fire Brigades Union said that it had met the thresholds in its recent ballots. Such unions, which are already ensuring an effective turnout, need not be concerned about this proposed legislation. Furthermore, they do not need to be concerned about the provisions as they currently stand, unamended in the Bill. Indeed, where it is right that action should be taken—it is clear that this method of negotiation is needed—they should be confident that their members will make every effort to vote for it.
	These measures are meant to ensure that, where there is not such support, the interests of the public are protected and weighed into the balance. In one intervention in this debate, it was suggested that the thresholds have been met in transport. In fact, the bus drivers strike earlier this year took place at the behest of a turnout of 21%, inconveniencing all the workers who were attempting to get to work. Transport for London reported that there were 6.5 million passengers in London who needed to make alternative arrangements.

James Cartlidge: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that those people will be among the most vulnerable and lowest paid in the city who rely entirely on that transport system.

Lucy Frazer: That is absolutely right. When there are strikes, the people who suffer are the low paid workers who have to get alternative childcare, whose hospital appointments are affected and who cannot get to work.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Lucy Frazer: I will not give way, as I want to continue.
	Although it may be possible to increase methods of voting, we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. New clause 5 suggests that electronic means should be provided as is determined by the unions. In an area potentially rife with practical concerns, we need to be sure that there will be no issue with the amendments before they are allowed. If the unions have the power to bring major industries to a standstill, they need to exercise that power responsibly and democratically. It is essential that any ballot is seen to be conducted fairly and transparently. If there is any risk, or perceived flaw in the ballot, the legitimacy of the ballot may be in question. The vote that is taken by the union members—

Chris Stephens: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Lucy Frazer: I am about to finish.
	The vote taken by the union will not garner public support and public trust that the representation of the unions demands, and it is for that reason that we should pass clauses 2 and 3 without amendment at this stage.

Ian Lavery: This is a Bill that nobody has asked for and that nobody wants. Even the latest polls in the national press show that the general public are opposed to this union-bashing Bill—this gagging Bill part two. It was the deputy chairman of the Conservative party who said it was about time that we stopped bashing the trade unions. Let us be completely clear on this issue. It is undoubtedly a ferocious, full-frontal attack on the 6 million-plus members of the trade union movement. I take exception to some comments that have been made, not by everybody on the Government Benches but certainly by a number who seem to want to distinguish between trade union members and ordinary people. The trade union members that I know and mix with are more than ordinary people; they are absolutely fantastic individuals who go the extra mile to try to help colleagues at every opportunity.

Angela Rayner: A good friend of mine, a local community activist in my constituency, is very proud of her roots. Her mum is Evelyn Allard, one of the Dagenham women who took industrial action in pursuit of equal pay. Does my hon.
	Friend agree that under this Bill the employer might have prevented such an action from even starting, let alone succeeding, and the Bill will therefore have a particular impact on women?

Ian Lavery: There is no doubt about that. I fully concur with my hon. Friend about the impact this will have on women in particular. Whether we like it or not, the Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on women in the workplace.
	Getting back to these ordinary people, trade union members are taxpayers. They want their children to get to school in the morning, to counter the argument made by a number of Members on the Government Benches. Do people think that trade union members do not have children?

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of this debate is very similar to that on working tax credits? How do Conservative Members think they can make the case for working people if they are going to be ideologically driven on the subject of working people? It does not make sense.

Ian Lavery: I fully agree and hope to develop that point.
	This is the gagging Bill, part 2. It is about disarming any dissent, particularly in the public sector. When we look at the thresholds, the ballot provisions, the measures on agency workers and all the new clauses and amendments, we begin to see the big picture. The Bill is about criminalising working people and eradicating any resistance, particularly in the public sector and particularly with regard to women. Why are the Government bashing low-paid people in the public sector, imposing pay restraints on them and coming up with crazy ideas about stripping tax credits from hard-working, low-paid people? They do not want to give those people the right to fight back. That is what the Bill is about. It is about eradicating that dissent while the Conservative Government keep their foot firmly on the necks of the low paid who are struggling even to make ends meet.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is right about the way that people are being treated at work, but the other disgraceful thing about the Bill is that it is a clear attempt to break the relationship between the trade union movement and this party. It is about undermining this party, which represents the people he is talking about, so it is not only the trade unions that will be affected but every man and woman in this country. If this party is less strong, the Conservatives will continue to discriminate against working people.

Ian Lavery: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the Bill’s provisions on opting in to, rather than out of, the political fund. There has for many years been a gentlemen’s agreement that political funding should be decided on a cross-party basis. Many Conservative Members would agree that this is not the type of Bill into which they should insert a clause which would so greatly restrict the finances of an opposing party that it would struggle to fight a general election. As well as tackling the issue of dissent, the Bill is an attempt to ensure that the Opposition do not even have the finances to fight. It is about the Conservatives believing that they have the right to rule—not govern, but rule, and that is quite different.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I cannot help reflecting on the comments of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who said that legislation should be appropriate to the time. We are in a time when industrial action in this country is at an all-time low. What problem to do with industrial action is the Bill trying to sort out?

Ian Lavery: We are in a time when more than a million people, most of them in work, are claiming family tax credits, and more than a million people who are in work and have families need to use food banks. I mentioned gagging and eradicating dissent. The Bill is about keeping people quiet.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman has slightly widened the debate, with tax credits and so on. He talks about us putting our foot on the neck of the poor. Does he think we are doing that by delivering the record lowest number of workless households that this country has ever seen?

Ian Lavery: That comment would give me the opportunity, if the Deputy Speaker were to allow it, to diversify my contribution. The Conservative Government have increased to record levels zero-hour contracts, lower-paid work and the number of apprentices, but before Mr Deputy Speaker chastises me, I will move on from that immediately because it is nothing to do with the Bill.

Lucy Frazer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 788,000 days were lost last year in strike action, at a time when every party in this House says that productivity is key?

Ian Lavery: If that is the figure, so be it, but in every case industrial action would have been taken through the legal process and as a last resort by individuals who need to take strike action to make their voice heard. We have the most restrictive anti-trade union legislation in the western world, and to take a day’s action or any other type of action, workers have to go through all the hoops set out in legislation.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) commented on statistics and days and hours lost. My hon. Friend will recall from Committee that the hours lost in the provision of transport in London were due to reasons other than industrial action. The overwhelming majority of time lost is due to breakdowns, signal failure, overcrowding, leaves on the line and so on. Industrial action has accounted for barely 2% or 3% in most of the past 10 years. Is that not the fact that we are dealing with today?

Ian Lavery: I fully accept that. If we want to talk about productivity, we need to look at that, instead of trying to highlight something that is not really a problem.

Rachael Maskell: Days have been lost through industrial action because the negotiators, whether that is the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State for Health, refused to come to the negotiating table, refused to talk to the trade unions, and have been spoiling for a strike, as we are seeing now over the junior doctors contract. Surely the Bill should be about improved industrial relations which give a voice to working people, as opposed to crushing that voice.

Ian Lavery: I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]

Tom Blenkinsop: The Minister just said that the Tories voted for it at the last election. You did not declare that as a policy prior to the last election. You also did not declare the NHS Act or the changes to the tax credits. If you are so proud of this planned legislation, why did you not declare it before the general election?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. First of all, I am not responsible. I want to clear that up. [Interruption.] No, “you” refers to me. Mr Blenkinsop, you were wrong: it is not me. It may be those on the Government Benches, but you said “you”. Secondly, we need to speak about the amendment. I have allowed some latitude, Mr Lavery, because you have been tempted away, and I know that you want to get back to where you were.

Ian Lavery: That is absolutely correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the reason my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did is that Government Front Benchers were having a separate conversation and not listening to a single word he was saying. That is not unusual.
	This Bill is simply here to do three things: to restrict the right to organise, to restrict the right to collective bargaining, and to restrict the right to strike action. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, but I listened to many of the arguments in the evidence sessions, which were quite enlightening. I think the Minister himself would say that the Government found it extremely difficult to get anybody who had a clue what the Bill was about to speak for them at the evidence sessions. One of their witnesses, the chief executive of 2020Health, spoke about facility time. Facility time is a huge issue in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said. He asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene to dictate on facility time in Scotland and Wales. I would ask whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene in facility time in any workplace anywhere in the UK. The answer, quite simply, is that it is not right: they should keep out of the workplace with regard to the likes of facility time.

Tom Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out that that self-same witness had no idea what life and limb cover was, nor did she know that it has been in existence since at least the early ’80s, if not the late ’70s, as a TUC agreement with the emergency services to make sure that there was always cover in the event of an emergency. The fact that witnesses called by the Government had no idea about long-term existing legislation shows how poor this Bill is and how poor the Minister’s work on it has been.

Ian Lavery: This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.

Andy McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of facility time is beneficial to the good running of any public authority or business, and that eroding it will cause immense difficulties in terms of productivity if union representation cannot be provided for union members in the workplace?

Ian Lavery: Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.

Catherine West: When I was a council leader employing thousands of staff, facility time was given to cope with all the casework as a result of the then Government forcing cuts on local government that led to many redundancies. We had to triple the amount of casework time, which was crucial in ensuring that that terrible period of redundancy was managed in a humane way that helped people.

Ian Lavery: I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If the Government start to decide how much, or how little, facility time individuals should have, there will be a breakdown in communication between the trade unions, the workforce and, indeed, the employers. In local government and the NHS, facility time is much valued and to the benefit of the general public.
	If we applied the 40% and 50% thresholds to members of the coalition Cabinet prior to the election, not one of them would have been elected. We have to be fair and consistent with regard to thresholds. The average turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections was 17%, but nobody is saying that we should not listen to anything they have to say. The Government themselves were elected by only 24% of the electorate, but not many people are saying—although a lot of people are wishing it—that they should not have the right to govern. Fairness should prevail.
	There have been many discussions about how e-balloting would provide for a much bigger turnout. That is what the Conservative Government want, and I agree: we want more people to participate in the ballot, hence the threshold issue. It is terribly unfair to suggest that e-balloting is not a secure way to ballot individuals, because it is.

David Rutley: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the time we are in. It is pretty clear, as I understand it from what Labour Front Benchers are saying, that we are in a time of increased militant union activism. The shadow Chancellor has said:
	“We will support all demonstrations in Parliament or on the picket line. We will be with you at every stage.”
	Can the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) not see that what we are trying to do is to protect the public through increased accountability and transparency?

Ian Lavery: I do not recognise the words of the hon. Gentleman, who usually addresses issues in a much more productive way.

Clive Efford: On protecting the public, we ought to remember that when we fought in this place to ban hunting with dogs, it was the Tories—not trade unionists—who let the protesters on to the Floor of this House. When Conservative Members talk about freedom of speech, perhaps they should remember some of their own past activities.

Ian Lavery: That is a fair point, well made by my hon. Friend.
	There are lot of examples of e-balloting, including its use in mayoral elections and by the Central Arbitration Committee. I am a great believer in balloting in the workplace and, indeed, in a hybrid of both methods, to make sure that people actually get involved in such important ballots.

Richard Burgon: What kind of society are we moving towards when, under the proposed 50% and 40% threshold rule, a strike would be illegal even if 79% of the votes cast were in favour of strike action?

Ian Lavery: That is absolutely correct and spot on.
	I will very briefly mention one other issue. The Conservatives are suggesting something that happens nowhere else in society—that those who do not cast a vote will be classified as voting no. That is outrageous and horrendous. It is undemocratic. It is against International Labour Organisation conventions and against European Court of Human Rights decisions. That will— I repeat, will—be challenged.
	I end by simply saying that, in my view, there is no place in today’s society for this unbelievably brutal attack on hard-working men and women in the workplace. I predict one thing: that when ordinary people are pressurised too much, there will be a reaction. I predict from the Floor of the House of Commons that there will be civil disobedience because bad laws need to be changed.

James Cartlidge: I will speak primarily to amendments 15, 16 and 21, tabled by the Scottish National party, which relate to the clauses on thresholds and the termination of the ballot mandate. My understanding is that if they were added to the Bill, they would, in effect, be completely redundant because they would require the provisions to be agreed by all the devolved authorities and, interestingly, by the Mayor of London, who I expect would very strongly agree.
	It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee, my first as a Member of Parliament. I can genuinely say that I, for one, have a great admiration for the union movement. As a new MP, I found it stimulating and interesting to cross-examine the five most powerful union leaders. I went up to them afterwards and shook their hands. In fact, Sir Paul Kenny, perhaps sensing my inexperience in these matters, asked me whether I would like to come and join him on a picket line to find out what it was like. I am not sure which picket line he was referring to—perhaps the Chief Whip’s—so I declined it on that occasion.

Kevin Brennan: You have made that illegal, haven’t you?

James Cartlidge: Well, he gave me an invitation.
	I must confess that there are many parts of the Bill on which I would not have been an expert had I not sat on the Public Bill Committee, but many members of the public think the same. If we were to talk about parts of the Bill to people who were not au fait with the details of unions or who were not themselves unionised, they would not necessarily be familiar with or see its significance. I do not say that with any disrespect to such issues, which I recognise are important to many Opposition Members.
	For most members of the public, the key issue is the threshold. This is about the large strikes that, although relatively small in number, have had a massive impact, such as the London tube strikes. I would say to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who made a very impassioned speech, that if he wants to see fury and people considering civil unrest, he should go and watch London commuters trying to fight their way on to a bus because the tube was out of action because of a ballot on lower than the threshold we will require.

David Rutley: Too often, we hear Labour Members talk about the inconvenience of a strike. In fact, a strike can cause major disruption. Surely we should focus on that. We need clear accountability to ensure that such disruption is minimised wherever possible.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend puts his point very well.
	I would remind the House that when we took evidence, we heard from Roy Rickhuss—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—the general secretary of the Community trade union. He is of course very busy, at this very difficult time, with the steel industry. When asked about thresholds, he said that
	“it is about having proper industrial relations and having a partnership approach. I do believe a threshold of 50% plus one is fair and reasonable, because that is what we have—that is our democracy.––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 26-27, Q66.]

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has commented a few times about the fury of commuters. I understand that completely; we are commuters as well. If the provision goes through and the Bill is enacted, and a strike then takes place legitimately, is he really saying that that the people he represents will no longer be furious?

James Cartlidge: No, I am not saying that. If the strike took place with the strong support that has to be achieved under these provisions, the public would at least understand that it had full consent. They are angry about the strikes—we heard about them in evidence given to us by bus companies, rail companies and others—in which, on relatively small turnouts, massive disruption has been caused to millions of people.

Edward Argar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not ban or prohibit strikes, but ensures that the hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who are affected by strikes in vital public services can be reassured that there is a genuine mandate for such action?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well.
	I finish with this point. The hon. Member for Wansbeck asked what support there was for the Bill. We have heard from the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, bus companies, rail companies and, above all, the people who use the services. Even Len McCluskey issued a letter to the Committee supporting the 50% threshold. I accept that that was with e-balloting, but there is strong principled support across the country for changes on thresholds. I will leave it there.

Ian Lavery: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Has the hon. Gentleman given way or finished? We need to get this right.

James Cartlidge: I am happy to take this point.

Ian Lavery: I need to clarify the point about Len McCluskey. Unite the union suggested that discussions should take place. It wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that thresholds would be irrelevant if the Government introduced e-balloting in the workplace. That was the precondition.

James Cartlidge: I thought it was fair to give way to the hon. Gentleman, given that I had mentioned him a couple of times, but the best person to take those points forward is the Minister. On that point, I am happy to conclude.

Tommy Sheppard: On Second Reading, I asked a question to which I have had no answer to date. Quite simply, what problem is this proposed legislation designed to solve? What calamity do we have in our land in the field of industrial relations that means that the Government of the day must prioritise this legislation? I cannot find any. The average worker in the United Kingdom goes on strike for one day every 15 years. It is therefore ridiculous that this matter should be the priority of the Government.
	I believe that the only reason the Bill is before us, with so few Government Members listening to the debate, is purely ideological. I do not say that all Members or all strands of the Conservative party are against trade unions, but there most definitely is a strand that is very unempathetic to trade unions and that sees the ability of people to combine together in the workforce to prosecute their interests as an impediment on the rights of employers to make their profits and run their enterprises as they see fit. There is a hostile attitude to trade unions. That, unfortunately for the working people of this country, is the strand within the Tory party that is in the ascendency and in the driving seat in respect of this legislation.
	It is a great irony, is it not, that to introduce this legislation, the Conservative party will have to have an unprecedented degree of state interference in the affairs of private enterprise? There will have to be state regulation of trade unions that is more akin to a totalitarian than a democratic regime.
	I support the SNP amendments that would require consent from the local and devolved authorities in the United Kingdom for the provisions of the Bill to be implemented. In parallel with this discussion, we have been having a debate on the Scotland Bill about the competences and authorities that should go to the Scottish Parliament. In fact, we argued that this entire area should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament simply because it would mean that proposals such as this Bill would never see the light of day. However, we know that there is not a majority in this House for devolving these powers and I want it to be clear that we are not arguing for that today.
	What we are arguing for goes to the heart of the debate in this country about who runs public services. It has been the will of this Parliament that many of our public services should be devolved to local and devolved administrations. It is therefore not right for this Parliament to hinder the ability of the managers of those services to deliver them by interfering and setting requirements on the most important resource that is available to them: the workforce. Just because the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has a problem managing relations on the London underground, the rest of country should not have to suffer.
	A series of amendments seek consent on each of the major provisions in the Bill. I will speak about some of those measures, but I will try not to repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends, much of which I completely agree with. A number of mechanisms in the Bill are designed to make it harder for a trade union to win a ballot to go on strike—let us be clear about that objective. However, Conservative Members are mistaken if they think that that will make a problem go away.
	It seems that among the authors of this Bill there is great ignorance about the process of managing industry. Often, if a concern or dispute arises among the workforce, and members go to their trade union and the union decides to do something, that can be a way of resolving a dispute or problem to the benefit of the industry or service concerned. The additional measures in the Bill will make it harder for unions to go on strike, but that will let problems fester and dysfunction continue, which will not benefit the trade, industry or service in which the dispute is taking place. When a union eventually passes those hurdles and gets a mandate for a strike, that strike will be bigger, longer and more vicious than it ought to have been had the matter been attended to at an earlier stage. I contend that measures that the Government think are about making it harder for unions to take strike action will have a deleterious effect on industrial relations and make it harder for the management of public or private services to deliver and get the consent of their workforce.
	Given the way that the issue is being discussed, it seems that Conservative Members conceive of facility time as some sort of stipend whereby union officials spend all day organising strike action and trying to bring industry to its knees. It is nothing of the kind, and if those Members had worked in a public service for one day, they would understand that often, union stewards and officials play an extremely constructive role at local level in the delivery of that industry or service. In many ways, their role can be described as that of a welfare officer, and officials often help out individual employees who may have problems with management or at work, but who may also just have personal problems that are affecting their work.

Jo Stevens: When giving evidence to the Bill Committee, the general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, John Hannett, said that trade unions are problem solvers rather than problem causers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Tommy Sheppard: I agree wholeheartedly and my experience all my working life, as both employer and employee, indicates that that is exactly the case. Facility time can be a good thing for management and industry, and for getting things done.
	If a local authority, health board or whatever has a check-off facility that has been voluntarily agreed with its workers to deduct a payroll subscription for a union, how can it be okay for that to be outlawed and criminalised, when the same facility can be used by the National Trust or any charity or insurance scheme that wishes? That is frankly ridiculous and punitive in the extreme, and it belies the fact that the Bill, despite its title, is an anti-trade union Bill. Hopefully we will get an explanation for that when the Minister winds up the debate. If this is about money and the cost to the public sector, I am sure that unions will be happy to negotiate paying. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) remarked earlier, local authorities and others may be able to make money out of providing a service for payroll check-off.
	Time is short and I know that other Members want to speak. I say simply that if the amendment is voted down and we do not agree to the consent of the London Mayor, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, or whoever is delivering the service being required for this provision to be implemented, and that the Government will force services to do whatever they want, even if that does not make sense locally, will we not be entering into uncharted territory? The Government will effectively be declaring that they are prepared to go to war with the devolved Administrations and local authorities in this country, which they have said should be responsible for the delivery of those services.
	As I have said so many times, this is one of the things in the Conservatives’ manifesto that I do not think they ever expected they would have to implement. They do not have a mandate for this, and I ask them, even at this eleventh hour, to pull back.

David Anderson: I am proud to declare my interests in relation to the trade union movement. I am glad that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) has returned to his place, because he talked about intimidation in workplace ballots. I refer him to the last two workplace ballots run by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1981 and 1983, in very tense times. There was an 80% turnout in both ballots on taking national strike action to fight pit closures. In both ballots, more than two thirds of the members said no. Where was the proof of intimidation there?
	The hon. Gentleman also claimed that my party wants to go back to workplace ballots only, but that is completely untrue. We do not want these changes, but if we have to have them, let us be serious about them. We have tabled amendments to keep workplace ballots, but we have also said, “Let’s have electronic voting.”
	It is clear that this Bill is about bias. It is about blocking people like me from having the opportunity to go through the trade union movement and get the skill, the confidence, the training and the support from a trade union to become part of the political movement that the trade unions gave birth to, so that I can come in here and challenge people such as the hon. Gentleman who want to destroy the things that I believe in and he hates. That is what this Bill is about—nothing more, nothing less.
	Who wants this Bill? When I was canvassing in Blaydon during the election, not one person said to me, “We want to tighten trade union legislation.” More pertinently, before the debate today, not one person asked me to support the Bill. But 431 people have written to me directly to ask me to oppose it. The employers do not want it, the workers do not want it and it is clear that the public do not want it. If this Bill is forced through, we will see more industrial unrest, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said. Disputes will not end, victimisation in the workplace will not end, health and safety abuses at work will not end, discrimination will not end and exploitation will not end.
	Frustrated workers will not stand back, no matter what the legislation says. We will end up with workers being forced to break rotten laws. If that happens, I would say to members of my party and other MPs of conscience that we should stand four-square behind those workers. This Bill is nothing more than an attempt to undermine democracy. The Conservatives are even abusing the memories of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher—and I cannot believe I am saying that.

Nicholas Boles: We have heard fierce argument in Committee and today from those who would seek to exclude some areas of Great Britain from the reach of the Bill, or who would seek to allow coverage in those areas only with the consent of the bodies to which certain other responsibilities have been devolved. Nothing in the Bill need cut across the positive relationships that we have heard about between unions and Government in Scotland and Wales.
	There is nothing to stop union representatives using paid facility time to fulfil their union duties to help represent working people. All the Bill does in relation to facility time is introduce measures that have already been introduced in the civil service, and union duties are still admirably and adequately fulfilled in the civil service.
	It is important for the productivity and prosperity of Great Britain as a whole that arrangements pertaining to employment matters apply consistently across the whole country. Employers do not see boundaries when engaging staff. Many employers have employees in all three countries, in London and in various English authorities. Having different employment laws applying would produce a complex situation, involving much confusion and cost for business.

Jonathan Edwards: As the Minister will be aware, this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland because these issues are devolved. Is he aware of the comments by Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister in Northern Ireland? He said:
	“I do not believe that there is a case for winding back the clock in terms of trade union reform or that such regression would also be supported by the Executive and the Assembly.”
	Is it seriously a surprise to the Minister that that Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales agree with those points?

Nicholas Boles: I am sorry we were not able to hear from the hon. Gentleman directly, because I am sure he has much to contribute. He will be aware there is a particular historical record in Northern Ireland, which is why, quite a long time ago, employment law was devolved to Northern Ireland. That historical record, I am glad to say, does not apply elsewhere in Great Britain. This is why employment and industrial relations law are clearly reserved matters under the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. It is entirely in order for the Government to propose that the Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain and does not require the consent of the devolved Governments or any local authorities.
	Let me turn to the detail of the various amendments on ballot thresholds, information, mandates, and consent by devolved authorities. Commuters and families all over Great Britain suffer disruption when the workers in a local transport provider or school go on strike. By increasing the democratic mandate, the Bill will not stop strikes—it may not even lead to many fewer strikes—but it will reassure members of the public that strikes are happening on the basis of strong democratic mandates, and that their lives are not being disrupted for no purpose.

Chris Matheson: Several private bus companies in Chester have recently withdrawn rural services, which is inconveniencing commuters in Chester. Why are the Government not legislating to stop them doing that?

Nicholas Boles: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.
	On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.

Chris Stephens: The Minister talks about unions being organised on a geographical basis. Does that mean that the Educational Institute of Scotland will be exempt from the Bill?

Nicholas Boles: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had very lively and enjoyable debates in Committee, knows that the provisions in the Bill apply under the devolution settlement throughout Great Britain and to all institutions, including those active only within Scotland.
	In conclusion on these amendments, Parliament has put in place proper procedures for considering what should be reserved to Westminster and what should be devolved to other Administrations. Debates took place in this Chamber only yesterday on what should be devolved and what should be reserved to Westminster. Employment and industrial relations law is reserved.
	Turning to other balloting methods proposed in amendments tabled by Opposition parties, it is vital that union members, employers and the public have the utmost confidence in ballot processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued so clearly. Without that, the integrity of the whole system would be called into question; members would not use it, unions would not rely on it, and employers and the public would not trust it. That is not in anyone’s interests.
	As I said in Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said, we have no objections in principle to the introduction of e-balloting. I expect that in some time—maybe in five or 10 years—the practical objections I am about to outline will have been overcome. It is simply a matter of time and human ingenuity. However, there are practical objections, and the Opposition cannot just dismiss them. The onus is on them, in proposing new forms of voting, to show that the objections can be overcome.
	The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy received evidence from the Open Rights Group, and I quoted that evidence on Second Reading. This February, Jim Killock, its executive director, gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he said of online balloting:
	“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy… You have the complexity of making sure that internet systems are secure, that the voting equipment can be trusted despite being attached to the internet, and that every voter’s machine is not being tampered with. Given
	the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”
	I am not aware that the gentleman quoted is a Conservative or that he supports the Government. [Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me, Opposition Members should reflect on the objections raised and work with us to try to overcome them. We are absolutely open to discussing these practical objections, and to working with the Opposition parties and anyone else in society to overcome them.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend has spoken about problems with processes, but we are talking about some of the most venerable institutions in our country: trade unions. At this early stage of the Parliament, with five years of important discussions to have with trade unions across the country on wages, terms and conditions, productivity and efficiencies, does he want to say to trade union leaders that the Government do not trust them to run a ballot?

Nicholas Boles: I want to say to trade union leaders that when they can overcome the objections listed not by me, but by experts from groups such as the Open Rights Group, the Government will be happy to work with them to implement new forms of balloting. Until then, however, we remain to be persuaded.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right that there is no requirement for primary legislation to introduce new forms of balloting. It can be done under powers in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Chris Stephens: I thank Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been struck by three things. I say gently to the Minister and the Conservatives—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Chris Stephens: I am summing up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to stop you in a second, so you need to say whether you want to withdraw the amendment.

Chris Stephens: Okay, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means

‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
	(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
	(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
	(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
	(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
	(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
	(5) In this section—
	(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
	(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
	(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
	(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
	(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
	(b) votes cast are secret; and
	(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
	(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”—(Chris Stephens.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 268, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Union supervision of picketing

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 6, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 9.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 38,page5,line6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Amendment 10,page5, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
	‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if—
	(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;
	(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and
	(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.
	(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.
	(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.
	(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.
	(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”
	Amendment 39,page5,line7, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Amendment 40,page5,line10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Amendment 41,page5,line15, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Government amendments 2 and 3.
	Amendment 42,page5,line17, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Amendment 43,page5,line20, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Amendment 44,page5,line25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
	This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
	Government amendment 4.
	New clause 1—Industrial action and agency workers—
	‘(1) Subject to subsection (3), an employment business shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform—
	(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or
	(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,
	unless in either case the employment business does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3) an employer (“the hirer“) shall not procure an employment agency to supply a work-seeker to perform—
	(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or
	(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,
	unless in either case the hirer does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.
	(3) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply if, in relation to the first workers, the strike or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the 1992 Act.
	(4) For the purposes of this section an “employment business” means an employment business as defined by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
	(5) Breach of the provisions of this section shall be actionable against both the employment business and the hirer for breach of statutory duty.
	(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the duty in subsections (1) and (2) above are owed to—
	(a) any worker who is taking part in the strike or industrial action; and
	(b) any trade union of which such a worker is a member.”
	New clause 3—Statements on Bills affecting Trade Union political funds—
	‘(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill, if the Bill contains provisions which are likely to affect the machinery of Trade Union political funds—
	(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced with the agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons, or
	(b) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced without agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons as the case may be.
	(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.”
	New clause 4—Certification Officer—
	For subsections (2) to (4) of section 254 of the 1992 Act substitute—
	‘(2) The Certification Officer shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.
	(3) There shall be a Certification Officer for Scotland, equal in status to the Certification Officer in subsections (1) and (2) above.
	(4) The Certification Officer for Scotland shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.””
	Amendment 27,page5,line31, leave out Clause 10.
	Amendment 1,page7,line6, at end insert—
	‘(2A) After section 85 of the 1992 Act insert—
	“85A Payment of political funds directly to political parties
	(1) The opt-in notice at section 84 of this Act must include a provision to permit the member of a trade union to direct the trade union to transfer the member’s political fund contributions directly to a UK political party rather than the trade union’s political fund.
	(2) In this section a “UK political party” is a political party that is on the register of political parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintained by the Electoral Commission.
	(3) Where a trade union member indicates that his or her contributions should be transferred directly to a UK political party, the union must make the transfer within 31 days of receipt of the contributions from the member.””
	This amendment would empower trade union members to direct their political fund contributions be paid directly to a political party rather than into a union’s political fund.
	Amendment 28,page7,line11, leave out clause 11.
	Amendment 37,page8,line17, clause 12, leave out “how many” and insert “the percentage”.
	Amendment 25,page8,line19, leave out “total amount” and insert “the percentage”.
	Amendment 26,page8,line29, at end insert
	“and whether these are met in part or in full by a contribution from a trade union.”
	Amendment 24,page8,line29, at end insert—
	“(f) the percentage of relevant union officials whose facility time is met by a contribution from a trade union in whole or in part.”
	Amendment 23,page8,line42, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
	Amendment 11,page9,line32, clause 13, at end insert—
	‘(1A) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”
	Amendment 12,page10,line37, at end insert—
	‘(9A) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations.”
	Amendment 13,page10,line45, at end insert—
	“(d) (1B) “treaty obligations” means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.”
	Amendment 5,page11,line12, clause 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	‘(2) Subject to subsection (2A), an employer is a relevant public sector employer if the employer is a public authority specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2A) An employer is not a relevant public sector employer so far as trade union subscription deductions are concerned where there exists an agreement between the employer and a trade union which provides for—
	(a) the remittance by the employer to the trade union of those deductions, and
	(b) the making of a payment by the trade union to the employer in respect of that remittance.”
	Amendment 36,page11,line37, at end insert—
	‘(8) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations, where ‘treaty obligations’ means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.“”
	Amendment 35,page12,line8, at end insert—
	‘(4) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”

Kevin Brennan: I must say I thought we won the last debate, but somehow or other we lost the vote. As Disraeli said, perhaps a majority is its own repartee, but perhaps things will be different when these matters are discussed in another place.
	Amendment 6 would delete clause 9 and leave picketing arrangements as they currently stand. Picketing activities are already heavily regulated in the UK by an extensive range of civil and criminal laws. Unions must comply with the requirements for peaceful pickets contained in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and operate in accordance with the accompanying code of practice. The Conservative Government have failed to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in the Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee concluded that the BIS impact assessments on picketing restrictions were not fit for purpose.
	The Government have made some minor concessions, which I will come on to later, but these new provisions go far beyond what is fair or necessary. In fact they were described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) as Franco-style and I think that is an appropriate description, by a Conservative Member.
	The clause will introduce a new restriction on picketing activities by trade unions and their members, and failure to comply with these over-prescriptive requirements will expose trade unions to legal challenges. Employers will be able to apply to court for an injunction preventing, or imposing restrictions on, a picket or even for damages for failing to wear an armband on a picket line.
	Over the summer, the Government ran a very short consultation. It was utterly insufficient given the scale of the Bill’s proposed changes. The Government sought to rely on evidence gathered during the Carr review, even though the Government’s own impact assessment confirmed that
	“this evidence could not be substantiated”.
	Carr decided he was unable to make evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change as originally instructed
	“due to the increasingly political environment within which [he] was operating coupled with the lack of a significant enough body of evidence to support any recommendations for change”.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend see the irony in the supposed party of free marketeers intervening in an agreement between two other parties?

Kevin Brennan: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that point when we discuss some of the later amendments. For the moment, I shall talk about the picketing provisions.
	The BIS consultation document also acknowledged that most pickets conform to the guidance set out in the code of practice. The Regulatory Performance Committee’s review of the Government’s impact assessment also found that
	“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.
	Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate states:
	“In the absence of any evidence that these changes are needed, these bureaucratic proposals can only be construed as an attempt to create a situation whereby individuals and unions are set up to make mistakes, subjecting them to legal action and making strike action even more expensive and risky than it already is.”

Chris Stephens: Does the shadow Minister share my concern, which was also mentioned in evidence to the Bill Committee, that the proposed new picketing arrangements could result in the increased blacklisting of trade union activists?

Kevin Brennan: There is every likelihood of that happening, as was clearly revealed in the evidence given to the Committee.
	The current UK law provides sufficient safeguards, including provisions for the police to crack down on illegality and breaches of the peace, but all the while protecting the rights of trade union members to engage in peaceful picketing at the entrance to their workplace. These measures are not only unnecessary; they are an affront to democracy, which is why our amendment would remove them from the Bill altogether by deleting clause 9.
	I said earlier that the Government had introduced some minor changes as a result of the consultation. Their amendments in this group are the result of significant scrutiny and pressure from my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government have now decided to reverse their position on the plans to introduce even tighter restrictions on union pickets and protests that they proposed in their consultation over the summer. They have also granted minor concessions in amendments 2, 3 and 4 that loosen the requirements relating to letters and picket supervisors.
	Trade unions will not now be required to publish picket and protest plans 14 days in advance, detailing where, when and how they plan to protest and whether they propose to use Twitter and Facebook accounts as part of their campaign. It is extraordinary that that was ever proposed; it is a ludicrous proposal. Also, the Government will not now introduce new criminal offences on picket lines or direct local authorities to use antisocial behaviour provisions against union members participating in pickets and protests. Those minor concessions do not go nearly far enough, however. The Bill still contains many draconian measures that will violate the civil liberties of trade unions and their members. Clause 9 will still impose significant new restrictions on the ability of trade unions and their members to picket and protest peacefully, thereby undermining their civil liberties.

Ian Mearns: Perhaps it is regrettable that, having consulted on the matter, the Government have now withdrawn their proposal to outlaw secondary or wildcat tweeting.
	[
	Laughter.
	]
	Does my hon. Friend also agree that the evidence from the Police Federation and the National Police Chiefs’ Council made it clear that even the police do not want this legislation?

Kevin Brennan: Indeed; the fact that they did not want it was clear from the evidence of the Police Federation in particular. Satire is a powerful tool, and even when the Government make proposals that are apparently beyond satire, my hon. Friend manages to make a good point with his remark about wildcat tweeting.
	Picketing will now be lawful only if unions appoint a picket supervisor and notify the police of their name and contact details. The supervisors will be required to carry a letter of authorisation which must be shown to the employers or their representatives on demand. It is also astonishing that they will still be required to wear armbands to identify themselves. Sara Ogilvie of Liberty said the following during the oral evidence sessions:
	“The thought that we would require a person in 2015 to wear an armband and carry a letter of authorisation at the behest of the state in order to exercise their rights does not seem right.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c.58, Q157.]
	She was understating it. Any person with a feeling for freedom and liberty would feel uneasy at these provisions. They smack of a political culture alien to that which, whatever our political differences in this place, is normally shared across parties in this country. Why do trade unions engaged in a lawful trade dispute deserve to be singled out for what I can only describe as un-British treatment?
	I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches will be encouraged by their Whips to hold their noses and support clause 9, in the party interest, against some of their better instincts, but I have to say this to them: in terms of freedom and liberty, you can hold your nose all you like, but it still stinks.

Jo Stevens: Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill in effect creates two tiers of civil liberties and human rights in this country? One tier has much higher restrictions for trade union members and the other tier is for the rest of the population.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.
	New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:
	“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”
	The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.

Rachael Maskell: In the dispute at Northampton hospital, the pathologists were locked out of the lab and the trust brought in agency workers. That escalated risk to such an extent that samples were not able to be used for testing. Is it not the case that agency workers can make things far worse rather than better?

Kevin Brennan: They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

Chris Matheson: Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.
	The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that
	“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.
	New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
	Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.
	Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.
	What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?

Jeremy Lefroy: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the remarks that I would have made had I caught Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye. Does he agree that many employers in both the private and the public sectors have said how convenient, positive and mutually beneficial this arrangement is and how they do not see any downside to it whatsoever?

Kevin Brennan: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is as baffled as I am as to why the Government are going down this road. It really is quite an extraordinary provision in the Bill. Can anyone on the Government Benches answer this: in what other sphere would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction?
	Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Brennan: I am waiting for an intervention from a Government Member. Not even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) can manage an intervention.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Brennan: Whom shall I choose from the Labour Benches? I shall choose my neighbour first.

Stephen Doughty: There is also the absurdity that there are many other similar arrangements in place for charitable giving, cycle-to-work schemes or childcare schemes. It seems extraordinarily discriminatory to be acting in this way with regard to these voluntary arrangements for trade union subscriptions.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and gives further power to the point that I am making and the point that the hon. Member for Stafford is trying to make by virtue of his amendment.

Dawn Butler: I noted that nobody on the Government Benches could help my hon. Friend with his question. The only reason I could think of for such a ban is to try to destroy the trade union movement.

Kevin Brennan: Well, I am quite shocked by that accusation from my hon. Friend. On a serious note, there are many colleagues on the Government Benches who are members of trade unions. It was not so long ago that my old union, the National Union of Teachers, used to sponsor Conservative Members of Parliament.
	I will give hon. Members some benefit of the doubt here. I will actually believe for a moment that the majority of Conservative Members do not want to destroy the trade union movement, because they are democrats and we live in a democratic society. What conclusion could somebody looking at this proposal draw, other than that it exists to inflict damage in an illiberal and absolutely inappropriate manner on voluntary trade union associations and employees’ voluntary agreements with their employers?

Stewart Jackson: I know that in a former life the hon. Gentleman was a teacher, and he is making a very didactic case for his point of view. He is obviously a born-again libertarian. Is not the corollary of his argument that it is for individuals with free information to decide whether they wish to make a contribution to a trade union? That is the spirit of the Bill, rather than an element of compulsion.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is talking my language. I absolutely agree with that proposition, but has he read the clause? Does he understand what it means? Has he read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford? The Government are banning any opportunity for an individual to enter into an agreement with an employer, and banning the employer from entering into such an agreement with its workforce, even in exchange for ready money. That service is not being given away, but its provision will be banned even when employees are paying for it. I was a teacher, and I was not trying to be didactic; I was trying to tease out a reaction, and obviously I got one from him. He should have a closer look at what his Government are actually doing and what he is actually voting for. A majority may be the best repartee, as Disraeli said, but I do not think Disraeli would have thought that this fitted with the principles of a one nation Conservative party.

Simon Hoare: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a fellow Cardiff Catholic. He may recall that similar predictions of the death of the trade union movement, of which I am a huge fan and supporter on this side of the House, were made when earlier legislation was passed—for example, in the early 1980s. The trade unions came through; they survived and blossomed. Why does the hon. Gentleman think this Bill sounds the death knell for trade unions, when in 13 years of Labour Government there was no repeal of previous legislation?

Kevin Brennan: I am glad that trade unions are strongly supported in the Hoare house, but the hon. Gentleman should read the provision and then the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford, which seeks to tease out the fact that this measure is particularly illiberal.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Brennan: Before I give way to hon. Friends, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon because he is usually paid by the word.

Jonathan Djanogly: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have now looked at amendment 5, and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who made the point that an individual may want to contract with his employer, I point out that the measure talks about the trade union contracting on behalf of employers, which is a rather different point.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that trade unions are democratic organisations. They do things on behalf of their members because they are elected and chosen to do so as democratic, voluntary organisations. There is no attack on the individual, and unusually for him his intervention is specious.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister’s promise of a bonfire of red tape? Does he believe that this measure makes arrangements more or less bureaucratic for employers and trade unions?

Kevin Brennan: The so-called one regulation in, one regulation out rule—[Interruption.] Oh, it’s two out, is it? The rule is not being followed in the case of trade unions. Clearly, regulation of trade unions is not considered to be regulation at all, when in fact it is an extraordinary piece of regulation.

Paula Sherriff: Does my hon. Friend agree that this move to end check-off discriminates against trade unions, as the ban is unlikely to extend to other payroll deductions, including those for charity payments, pensions and cycle-to-work schemes?

Kevin Brennan: Indeed. Other hon. Members have made that point and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise it.

Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Brennan: I will give way one last time, then I will try to conclude so that other hon. Members can speak.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The intervention from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gives away how the Conservatives are prepared to dance on a pinhead in order to support the Bill. To suggest that an employer would be better off to contract with each employee individually to collect their union dues, rather than to do so collectively through the trade unions, is barmy.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred to our Catholic backgrounds, and my hon. Friend makes a veiled reference to St Thomas Aquinas when he refers to dancing on a pinhead. That is absolutely what the Government are doing—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend may not have known that he was doing so. His theological education is slightly lacking. The Government are dancing on a pinhead to try to justify an unjustifiable provision.
	Given that no Conservative Member can understand why the Government would want to ban a simple mutually beneficial voluntary transaction which involves payment for a service by one party and its representatives to another, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on his amendment. In its basic decency it has unmasked a fundamental illiberalism at the heart of the Bill.

Rachael Maskell: Many of the arrangements are contractual, so removing them would cost the employer a significant amount, estimated to be around £6 million.

Kevin Brennan: So much for the party of business, imposing costs on businesses that have entered into voluntary agreements.
	I hope the hon. Member for Stafford will seek to divide the House on his amendment, which is thoughtful and moderate, rather like the hon. Gentleman himself.

Victoria Prentis: The Trade Union Bill was my first experience of sitting on a Public Bill Committee. Our sessions were lively and often educational, like the previous speech. The bit about St Thomas Aquinas was greatly enjoyed in all parts of the House.
	As a former public sector worker myself for 17 years, I know what it is like to cross a picket line. I enjoyed questioning union greats, including Len McCluskey. Today those on the Conservative Benches have been called Dickensian, Stalinist and draconian, but many of us firmly believe that trade unions are valuable institutions in British society. It is vital that they represent accurately the views of their members. This Bill aims to ensure that hard-working people are not disrupted by under-supported strike action, but it is the human rights considerations that run through the Bill that have been of particular interest to me.
	The rights of workers to make their voices heard are, of course, important, and striking is an important last resort. We recognise that it is part of the armoury of trade union law. Article 11 of the European convention on human rights provides to everyone
	“the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.
	It is, however, important to recognise that article 11 is a qualified right.

Ian Lavery: Is the hon. Lady aware of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Ministers only days ago—it was sneaked out—on the change to the ministerial code, informing Ministers that they can now ignore international law? Does that have anything to do with this issue?

Victoria Prentis: I am not aware of that letter, although I am aware that there is a debate on the issue. I am talking about the European convention on human rights. There is no proposal from the Government to renege on that at any time in the future, as far as I am aware.

Imran Hussain: The hon. Lady talks a great deal about human rights and the European convention. Can she help me by telling me where article 11 talks about armbands and letters of authority?

Victoria Prentis: I would like, with your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to finish my point and come on to armbands later.
	Article 11 allows for proportionate restrictions on the exercise of—[Interruption.] I am referring to article 11(2), which states:
	“No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.
	The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly acknowledged, as recently as last year, that it is legitimate under article 11 for the Government to legislate to impose conditions on the right to strike where there is evidence that that is justified.
	The Court has also acknowledged that the Government have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding how to legislate. Clause 9, as we have heard, introduces a set of requirements on the supervision of picketing, following some sensible concessions that were made by the Minister following the consultation period. The picket supervisor will have to wear a badge, armband or other item to ensure that they are easy to identify. This is hardly onerous.

Jo Stevens: The hon. Lady referred to article 11(2), which sets out the circumstances in which the right of freedom of association can be interfered with, including the protection of national security and the prevention of serious crime. All we have heard Conservative Members talk about is the “temporary inconvenience” that strikes cause. I am afraid that that is not listed in article 11(2).

Victoria Prentis: I do not believe that the wearing of a badge or armband, or some other means of identification, is onerous in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. In fact, it is something that unions widely do already as part of the code on picketing, which actually says that everybody should wear an armband.
	I must admit that in Committee I was somewhat bemused by this part of the argument and the briefs provided by Amnesty International and Liberty in the evidence that was given. Both are excellent human rights organisations that undertake extremely important work around the world dealing with executions and torture, yet the wearing of an armband by one person so that they are identifiable during a strike presents them with a big issue. I do not agree. We are not asking everybody taking part in a strike to wear an armband, but simply asking the organiser of a particular event to do so in order to identify themselves.

Rachael Maskell: rose—

Victoria Prentis: I am going to finish, if I may.
	This seems to be an entirely reasonable and, more importantly, proportionate measure. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that trade unions take responsibility for the conduct of the pickets that they organise. It is only fair that the rights of those who belong to unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers, including those in my constituency, who rely on key public services.

Lisa Cameron: I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and a proud union representative for 14 years.
	Our proposals in new clauses 1, 3 and 4 and amendments 27, 28, 37, 25, 26, 24, 23, 11, 12, 13, 36 and 35 cover a variety of areas in the Bill that pose particular difficulties for public sector workers, focusing on agency workers and political funds. New clause 1 attempts to retain within primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Legislation banning the use of agency workers to break strikes has been in place in the UK since 1973. That position is in line with the majority of other European countries, which also prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. Removing that ban would be regressive and it would have significant implications for all workers.
	Public opinion polls also indicate that such changes are not supported by the majority of the general public. The SNP therefore supports new clause 1, which aims to retain in primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Although the Bill does not specifically include provisions for that measure to be repealed, the Government have been consulting on draft legislation that would allow that to happen. Adopting our proposal would therefore be a failsafe against that occurring in future.

Chris Stephens: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that the current penalty for an employer who hires agency workers to break strikes is very weak indeed? We need primary legislation to stop that practice.

Lisa Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also extremely important with regard to safety, including that of the public, which I will come on to discuss.
	Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. It has also been argued that it is relatively ineffective with regard to dispute resolution, as it serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.
	At a time when we are trying to encourage the living wage, the measure is also likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the country. It could have adverse implications for the agency workers themselves, as it would place them in a stressful environment.
	Introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace with which they are not familiar also has significant implications for health and safety and for quality of services. That will impact both on those workers and on the public at large, who may utilise those services.
	Those matters appear to be of particular concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll found that 65% of those surveyed were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, and more than half said they thought it would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% indicated that they believe that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.
	Unlike the UK Government, the SNP believes in a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism, which is at the very heart of being able to achieve fair work. We recognise that no one wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to promote confrontation by legislating them out of existence. The right way is to pursue a relationship, in partnership with both workers and employers, based on respect and co-operation.

Neil Gray: Would it not be better for this Government to value the work of our public sector workers in particular, rather than to undermine the role they play by bringing in agency workers to break strikes?

Lisa Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. Workers who feel valued are much more likely to increase productivity and boost the economy.
	New clause 3 would provide that, before the Government could introduce a Bill that would affect trade union political funds, they must first publish a statement specifying whether the Bill was being introduced with or without the agreement of all political parties represented in the House of Commons. The aim is to encourage the Government to seek political consensus with other political parties before introducing legislation that interferes with the ability of unions to engage politically.
	Unions that wish to contribute to political parties or to engage in certain political activities, as defined by section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, must establish a political fund. Before doing that, unions are legally required to ballot their members on whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund through a political fund resolution.
	Clause 10 will restrict unions’ right to freedom of association and their ability to engage in political debates. The provisions will place huge administrative burdens on unions, and may reduce the level of contributions raised, as has been the case in Northern Ireland. Currently, union members have the right to opt out of their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes, and they are not required to renew their opt-in. The proposals in clause 10 exceed the duties that apply to companies when making political donations. It is widely known that opt-in processes reduce participation. Amendment 27 seeks to remove clause 10 from the Bill completely, as it will undermine unions’ freedom of association.
	Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), would give union members the right to direct their union to pay donations straight to a UK political party of their choice, rather than contributing to a union’s political fund. We oppose the amendment as it assumes the union’s role is simply to act as a conduit for political donations. All individuals have the right to decide to donate to a political party of their choice. Unions cannot be required by law to associate them with any political parties whose values or objectives are not consistent with those of the union.

Tom Blenkinsop: Depending on the union, unions can have several political funds. For example, Unison does, which goes back to agreements made when the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association amalgamated.

Ian Mearns: Don’t forget COHSE.

Tom Blenkinsop: They amalgamated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, as my hon. Friend says. The legislation does not recognise internal agreements that have been reached over decades.

Lisa Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I would add that we heard testimony from witnesses in the Public Bill Committee on the very good work that unions contribute in terms of political donations to campaigns.
	Amendments 11 to 13 to clause 13 attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. The cap on facility time will reduce the capacity of trade unions to represent their members and resolve disputes in the workplace before they escalate. According to the TUC, there is a risk that the proposal for a cap could conflict with EU law protecting the rights of health and safety reps to have paid time off for their duties and training; the rights of union representatives to have paid time off and office facilities during consultations on collective redundancies and outsourcing; TUPE rights; and even rights under general information and consultation arrangements covered by the information and consultation of employees regulations.
	Amendments 35 and 36 also attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. Clause 14 will prevent all public sector employees from deducting union subscriptions via payroll. That will make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. The TUC is concerned that clause 14 will apply only to trade unions, not to staff associations. That suggests that the Government want to make it harder for people to join trade unions and to access the benefits of trade union membership, including effective representation in the workplace and specialist advice on employment rights, health and safety, and other work-related issues.
	Under clause 14, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector. In particular, the plans to impose changes to collective agreements voluntarily made by employers and unions do not comply with ILO standards. Minister Roseanna Cunningham made it clear during the evidence sessions that the Scottish Government do not support the proposed ban on check-off arrangements. In recent weeks, more than 50 local authorities, NHS employers and employer organisations have criticised the Government’s plans to ban check-off arrangements in the public sector.
	The Government claim that the proposal will save taxpayers up to £6 million. However, many unions already cover the cost of check-off services, as has been said. In some cases, fees charged by public sector employers for check-off provision generate a net gain. Another great concern that was raised in Committee was that legal challenges to the Government could cost the public purse.
	Amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), provides that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to public sector workplaces where the employer and the relevant unions had an agreement. We support that amendment.
	In conclusion, this debate is about people, their lives, their pay, their conditions and their safety in their workplace. It deserves to be paid the utmost respect by Members in all parts of the Chamber.

Ian Lavery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to place it on the record that I am a member of Unite the union and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It falls to each Member to declare his or her interests as they see fit. We are deeply obliged to him.

Jeremy Lefroy: I rise to speak to amendment 5, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I do so with a heavy heart, because clause 14, to which the amendment relates, is entitled, “Prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector”. As a Conservative, I am not greatly in favour of prohibition in many instances and I certainly am not in this instance. The clause was not in the Bill on Second Reading so we did not debate it and I am disappointed that it has been brought forward. Because it has been brought forward, I will speak to my amendment.
	When we introduce a prohibition, we must ask what the penalties will be. If a union and an employer decide that this kind of arrangement is so important and so difficult to unwind that they will continue using it, what will happen to them? Will the police be involved? Will the employer and the union be fined? If there is a prohibition, there must be some way of enforcing it. There is no sensible way of enforcing this kind of prohibition on what is a relatively sensible arrangement between an employer and a union.
	Let us be clear that we are talking about an agreement between an employer and a union, not something that is imposed on either of them. It is a partnership. In my view, it is generally a positive one as it enables people to work together. Surely that is what all of us are here to encourage. Nobody is required to have such an arrangement.
	If my amendment were accepted by the Government at some point, it would require the cost to be reimbursed, as it is in many arrangements up and down the country, including in my county of Staffordshire, where there is a perfectly good arrangement between Unison and Staffordshire County Council.

Stephen McPartland: I support amendment 5 because it is my understanding that local authorities and other such organisations would be able to charge a commercial rate to recover the costs.

Jeremy Lefroy: Yes, and they do. As I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), some councils make a surplus from it that goes towards their services.
	As has been pointed out, clause 14 singles out union subscriptions. There is no prohibition on other deductions for which there might not be compensation to the employer, such as deductions for season tickets, which have been mentioned, or professional fees. Even on my payslip as a Member of Parliament, the top deduction every month is £2 for the Members fund. There will be no prohibition on that deduction, unless the Members fund is a national union of Members of Parliament, which I do not think it is.
	Other people have made the case much more eloquently than I have, so I will not detain the House any longer on this point.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman makes a convincing and measured case, and I have looked closely at the wording of his amendment and think it very reasonable. Given what he has just said, if the Government are unwilling to accept this reasoned amendment, does he think that we should test the view of the House on it this evening?

Jeremy Lefroy: I will wait to hear what the Minister says. He is an extremely reasonable person and there are other ways in which such things can happen. I encourage the Government to accept the amendment because I do not want to see this clause unamended in an Act of Parliament signed by Her Majesty.
	Let me quote someone I greatly admire:
	“In most parts of the world the suggestion that someone might be both conservative and liberal would be viewed as absurd…In the UK there is no finer tradition, no more established custom and no stronger institution than that of freedom under the law…That’s why in Anglo-Saxon countries conservatism is freedom’s doughtiest defender and why the advance of freedom gives conservatism its moral purpose.”
	Those are the words of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and I entirely agree with him.

Catherine West: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are echoes in that speech of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, in which charities were almost proscribed for doing what they believed was right? There are also echoes from the attempts to change or alter the Human Rights Act 1998—it feels as if there is a creepy sense of authoritarianism, which I do not think Members in this place agree with.

Jeremy Lefroy: I respect the hon. Lady but I do not entirely agree with her. I would be interested to see whether the chilling effects that people so often claimed the 2014 Act would have on the 2015 general election campaign actually took place—indeed, we should have a review of that Act as it is important. I have made clear my views on the Human Rights Act: I believe that we should remain signatories to the European convention on human rights, and I hold to that. We look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward. I urge the Government, and especially the Minister whom I greatly admire, to have another look at the Bill, and to come forward with proposals that allow people who want to work together in this sort of format, and who are paying the right costs, to do so.

Stephen Kinnock: I declare an interest as a proud member of Community union. I represent the south Wales constituency of Aberavon which is steeped in the history of the trade union movement—Members will imagine the strength of feeling and amount of correspondence that I have received in opposition to this unjust and vindictive Bill. We now need a cultural change in Britain’s industrial relations, and a move away from the Punch and Judy style that has evolved thanks to legislation such as this Bill. There is an urgent need to move towards more collective bargaining across the economy, as that would have a direct and positive impact on productivity—something that the Government claim they are campaigning for passionately. Regrettably, the Bill will neither change the culture nor increase productivity. Instead, it will lead to an entrenching of the “them versus us” culture that is bad for workers, employers, customers, business, and the public at large.
	Let me draw the House’s attention to the sections in the Bill that deal with picketing. Conservative Members have failed completely to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in this Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s regulatory policy committee concluded that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment on picketing restrictions was not fit for purpose, and that no full impact assessment of the Bill has been published.
	Under these new provisions, trade union pickets will be subject to levels of police scrutiny and control that go far beyond what is fair or necessary. Most importantly, the changes in the Bill will also be a waste of police time. That issue was raised by the National Police Chiefs Council and the Police Federation in oral evidence to the Bill Committee. Steve White from the Police Federation said:
	“We are finding it extremely challenging to cope with day-to-day policing with the current resource levels, and the likelihood is that they are going to become squeezed even more. If there is an increased requirement for police involvement around the policing of industrial disputes, that would be more challenging.”
	I understand that Conservative Members are friends and supporters of the police, so I hope they will listen carefully to that.

Imran Hussain: When senior police officers are warning that neighbourhood policing is under threat, is it right that we should use police resources to further restrict the civil liberties of trade union members?

Stephen Kinnock: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We hear a lot from Conservative Members about smart government and deploying resources according to priorities. Does any hon. Member honestly believe that using police resources on this matter would be a good use of already stretched resources? I think not.
	The digital age has brought a revolution in the world of work. That has thrown up several questions, but also offers employers, trade unions and Government alike a once in a generation opportunity to work in partnership—a chance to shape a framework that provides the blend of flexibility and security that this new reality requires. If all parties were to seize that opportunity, we could potentially see the green shoots of a 21st century industrial relations culture that would, in turn, enable the development of a labour market that is fit for purpose and resilient in this new age. Let us not waste that opportunity with an adversarial and counterproductive Bill such as this.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I would say to him that I wish to call the Minister at, or close, to 5.50 pm, so he has three or, at most, four minutes.

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.
	Given the Opposition’s comments at various stages of the Bill, I am surprised that only the SNP—in new clause 4—has suggested amendment of the role of certification officer. As a shadow BIS Minister some years ago, I visited the certification officer, and everything I saw there shouted that it was a weak, toothless regulator crying out for reform. I wholly support the Government’s attempts to do so.
	As for new clause 4, I do not support the idea that the certification officer should have to have expertise in trade union law, although obviously some members of his staff will need to be experts, as much as others will need general legal or accounting skills. It is also somewhat ironic to hear that specific legal qualifications should be required when we know that the last Labour Government specifically excluded unions from regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The requirement in new clause 4 for a certification officer for Scotland may fulfil the SNP’s political mandate, but it would be unhelpful for Scottish and other British businesses which want to see a single regulator dealing with unions equally.
	Given the wide political and practical debates involved in the unions’ political funds, it is surprising that it has been left to the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) to initiate a debate on this important issue through amendment 1. To set up a political fund, trade unions must first ballot their members to adopt political objects as a union objective. Trade unions can then support political objects only with money from their political funds. The funds may also be spent on union objectives that are not political. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill includes an opt-in provision.
	On a connected issue, will the Minister confirm that I am right in thinking that failing to opt into the levy will not necessarily mean that a union member’s overall contribution will be reduced by the amount of the political contribution? If so, should we not consider doing that? Furthermore, given that statute dictates that companies require an annual vote on political donations, why should not the political levy be voted on annually by trade union members? Perhaps that could be addressed as the Bill makes progress.

Mr Speaker: To wind up the debate I call the Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

Nicholas Boles: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support Government amendments 2, 3 and 4, and to resist Opposition amendments and new clauses.
	The Government recognise picketing as a lawful activity when it is conducted in a peaceful way. We believe that when some people exercise their right to freedom of expression, it should not impact on others’ right to disagree with that view. The main requirement set out in the Bill is a statutory duty for the union to supervise picketing, in particular by appointing a picket supervisor. The picket supervisor must either attend the picket line or be readily contactable by the union and the police, and be able to attend at short notice to ensure that picketing is lawful. As you may recall, Mr Speaker, none of the measures in clause 9 is new. They reflect key aspects of the picketing code, which has been in existence since 1992; most unions have been very happy to comply with it in almost all cases. We have had no suggestions for its amendment from the Opposition, including in their 13 years in government.
	Government amendment 2 deals with the requirement in clause 9 for the union to issue a letter of authorisation. I have listened very carefully to the different views expressed on this requirement. It is clear that there has been some confusion about the purpose of the letter of authorisation, its content with regard to the picket supervisor, and the entitlement to be shown it. I would like to state for the record that there was never any intention of having the personal details of the picket supervisor set out in the letter of authorisation, but given that there continues to be uncertainty about how the requirement will work in practice, we are clarifying that the purpose of the letter is to record the union’s approval of a picket related to a particular dispute.
	I took on board the concerns expressed about the entitlement to see the letter, and said that I would return to this matter on Report. I assure the House that I take matters relating to data protection very seriously, and do not want to create any room for misconceived entitlement or concern about misuse of personal information. That is why we are making it clear that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation is restricted to the employer at whose workplace picketing is taking place, or the employer’s agent. To remove any scope for the misunderstanding that the picket supervisor is required to supply their name during picketing, we have removed the reference to the constable from the clause. The police will already have been informed of the picket supervisor’s contact details following the picket supervisor’s appointment.
	We have built in important flexibility; for example, the requirement should be to show the letter as soon as is reasonably practicable, to enable the picket supervisor to be at another picket line related to the trade dispute. The measures also help the employer by allowing them to ask their human resources manager or solicitor to act on their behalf. I comment the amendment to the House.
	On agency workers, I simply say that new clause 1 seeks to pre-empt the Government’s response to the consultation on agency workers. The Government consultation closed in September; we are analysing responses. We will publish a response in due course, and I resist any amendment that seeks to pre-empt it.
	On political funding, the Conservative manifesto on which we stood for election in May said that a future Conservative Government would ensure that trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. The public rightly expect us to deliver on these promises. It would be wrong, given our mandate, for us to engage in discussions behind closed doors and agree some kind of compromise that was then presented to the public and Parliament as a done deal. Many Opposition Members believe that this change will see political funding fall for certain political parties. That betrays an extraordinary lack of self-confidence in their ability to persuade union members of the merits of supporting their party. On that basis, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.

Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister do the same with the shareholders of companies that give money to the Tory party?

Nicholas Boles: I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I will give the hon. Gentleman another go, because I had another message in another ear.

Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give that opportunity to shareholders in big companies that give money to the Tory party?

Nicholas Boles: As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, any donations by public companies have to receive the approval of shareholders and are subject to the same declaration, at the exact same level, as we are proposing for trade unions, so when it comes to transparency and voting, things are equally clear.
	I want to turn at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and his arguments in support of his amendment 5. All Members will have heard a sincere and principled man making a sincere and principled argument. I say that not because he was so kind as to quote, rather awkwardly, a speech I made in a moment of delusion, but because I genuinely believe he seeks the best for the British people, British business and trade unions. I correct him on one point of fact, however: while some trade unions compensate employers for check-off arrangements, our understanding is that this relates to only 22% of check-off arrangements in the public sector.

Melanie Onn: Is the Minister aware that the general secretary of Unison—the largest trade union in the public sector—offered in Committee to reimburse employers for any check-off costs they incur?

Nicholas Boles: I am aware of that, because I was in the Committee, and the general secretary of Unison is an unforgettable man, and no one forgets when he makes them an offer. However, the purpose of the Government’s measure is not suddenly to undermine the representation of unions in the public sector—that is not what has happened in the civil service, where check-off has been removed—but to create a direct relationship between members and their trade unions by enabling them to make an active choice about which union will best represent them. We have heard from other unions that this has enabled them to compete for the membership of some in the civil service, and to form a more direct relationship with their members.

Jeremy Lefroy: I fully understand the Minister’s point, but in that case, why not let them choose whether to do this?

Nicholas Boles: I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but of course the choice would be made by the employer and the union, not the individual members. I have not yet been persuaded by his arguments, and will resist his amendment, if he pushes it, but I hope I can reassure him that we absolutely do not intend the measure to be a way of making life difficult for unions or of reducing their membership. We will double the time trade unions have to transfer members from the existing check-off arrangement to the new direct debit arrangement from six months to one year. That will not satisfy him and those who support his amendment, but I hope that it will at least reassure him that we do not intend this to be a way of making life difficult for unions. If there is anything further we can do on that point, I am happy to have further discussions with him.
	On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded not to press his amendment. We will talk about this more. I hope that I have reassured him that trade unions will have time to form the direct relationship with their members that the Bill seeks to provide.

Kevin Brennan: I just wish to confirm that we wish to push amendment 6 to a vote.

Mr Speaker: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I had rather anticipated that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 271, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendments made: 2,page5, leave out line 16 and insert
	“the picketing is approved by the union.”
	This amendment would make clear that the purpose of the letter from the union, held by picket supervisor, is to confirm that the picketing has been approved by the union. Approval of the picketing would require the union to supervise the picketing in accordance with the requirements inserted by clause 9.
	Amendment 3,page5, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
	‘(6) If an individual who is, or is acting on behalf of, the employer asks the picket supervisor for sight of the approval letter, the picket supervisor must show it to that individual as soon as reasonably practicable.”
	This amendment would oblige the picket supervisor to show the approval letter as soon as reasonably practicable if requested to do so, and also specifies that such a request can be made only by the employer or someone acting on the employer’s behalf.
	Amendment 4,page5,line27, leave out “section “picketing”” and insert
	“section—
	“approval letter” means the letter referred to in subsection (5);
	“employer” means the employer to which the trade dispute relates;
	“picketing”” —(Stephen Barclay.)
	This amendment inserts definitions of expressions used in amendment 3.
	New Clause 10
	Application of provisions to public sector employees across the UK
	“The extent and provisions of this Bill shall only apply to the public sector in the UK,
	(a) By consent of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.
	(b) Where consent has been granted, this consent can be withdrawn at any time.”—(Chris Stephens.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 267, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector

Amendment proposed: 9,page12,line8, at end insert—
	‘(3) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.’
	—(Kevin Brennan.)
	The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 269, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Tom Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication of whether there will be a written or oral statement by any Minister, given the statement today from the chief executive of Tata Steel Europe reported in The Economic Times in India that the long products division within Tata will have no future within Tata beyond this financial year? This includes the beam mill at Redcar, Skinningrove special profiles in my constituency, and Scunthorpe long products site.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I have had no such indication, but he has placed those serious matters on the record and I imagine that he will return to them when the House returns.
	Third Reading

Nicholas Boles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I start by thanking all Members who have taken part in our deliberations on this important Bill. We had a robust debate on Second Reading, and a lively and passionate debate continued in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who led for the Labour Opposition, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) who led for the SNP. They kept me on my toes throughout, and I have to admit that on occasion their fancy footwork pushed me uncomfortably close to the ropes. It is only because of the superb support of officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the unfailing vigilance of my hon. Friend the Whip, and my PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), and the stalwart resolve of hon. Friends on the Committee that we were able to resist their forensic fuselage.
	This Bill seeks to do two things—to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members, and to redress the balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of the general public, whose lives are often disrupted by strikes. We have brought it forward as a party that believes in trade unions, that is proud to win the support of many trade union members at elections, and that wants trade unions to carry on doing the excellent work they do to encourage workplace learning and resolve disputes at work.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you are as assiduous a reader of the ConservativeHome website as I am, but today the leader of the Scottish Conservative party published a superb piece about the importance of trade unions and hailed the launch of the Conservative Trade Unionists group by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
	The measures in this Bill are rooted in the manifesto, on the basis of which we won a majority of the seats in the House of Commons at the election in May. They are supported by members of the public whose interests as parents, as patients and as commuters we were elected to defend. The measures have secured clear majorities on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and I hope they will secure a similarly clear majority on Third Reading.

David Burrowes: Is it not important to ensure that the Bill is properly targeted and looks to where there is genuine support for changes, not least in relation to the removal of check-off? May I invite the Minister, as the Bill proceeds to the other place, to reflect on the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in speaking to amendment 5, with the recognition that there should be an agreement to compensate taxpayers for the financial burden, and the proposal for an agreement? It is important that we properly reflect on these arguments to ensure that we have this targeted approach to dealing with issues of trade unionism in the right way.

Nicholas Boles: I have already told my hon. Friend that I am happy to carry on talking to him about this as the Bill proceeds through the other place, and if he would like to join these discussions, I would be absolutely delighted.

Mark Durkan: Will the Conservative Trade Unionists group, which the Minister mentioned, be able to join online, or, given the dodginess of the internet, will they have to wait five or 10 years for that?

Nicholas Boles: I am tempted to say that they will have to buy a small donkey and write it on the side, but no, of course they will be able to join through the usual routes.
	I look forward to engaging with Members of the upper House, alongside my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and we will listen carefully to any concerns they may have. I hope that I have demonstrated through amendments to the provisions on the picketing supervisor and the letter of authorisation that the Government are willing to hear persuasive arguments and to respond. In turn, I trust that noble Lords and Baronesses will respect the clearly expressed will of the British people, which is established not by retweets or by protests in Parliament Square but through the votes of their elected representatives sitting here in the House of Commons.

Angela Eagle: As I did on Second Reading, let me begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declaring that I am a lifelong and proud trade unionist.
	I believe that our country succeeds when government, employers and employees work in partnership to tackle our economic and social challenges. Evidence shows that good industrial relations are more likely to lead to increased productivity, higher skills, and greater safety in the workplace, so any Government who were serious about economic progress and wellbeing would be working to improve industrial relations, but this Bill demonstrates that we have a Tory Government hellbent on doing the exact opposite.
	On Second Reading, I called the Bill “draconian, vindictive and counterproductive”, and during its passage through Parliament, this Government’s malign intent has been proved again and again. This Bill will do absolutely nothing to improve industrial relations in our country; in fact, it risks making them worse. It will do nothing to help build the modern economy we all want to see; in fact, it is an outdated response to the problems of decades past. It is bad for workers and bad for business.
	What is it about this Conservative Government that they are so afraid of checks and balances on their power, including challenges from free trade unions and unshackled civil society? This Government are pursuing a very deliberate strategy to legislate their critics into silence or submission, whether through the gagging Act or the war being waged by those on the Tory Benches on the charities that dare to have an opinion contrary to the Government’s. They are attacking the Human Rights Act 1998, targeting the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and issuing threats against the House of Lords for daring to ask them to think again on tax credits. This Government increasingly like to use the law to clamp down on dissent. Now the Conservatives have the trade unions in their sights again.
	In Committee, the Government gave no adequate justification for the many draconian measures in this Bill, and no evidence was provided to justify them. The sweeping changes to the opt-in for political funds go well beyond the current practices in Northern Ireland which have been used to justify the change. They are a nakedly partisan attack on Her Majesty’s Opposition. If enacted, these proposals would mark the abrupt end of the Churchill convention and of the long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government of the day should not introduce partisan legislation unfairly to disadvantage their political rivals. This is an abuse, and they know it.
	The Bill does nothing to deal with the issue of big money in politics and it leaves Tory funding sources completely untouched, while all the while forcing through changes that threaten the very existence of all political activity and campaigning by trade unions, most of which is entirely unrelated to the Labour party, and which, by the way, is already heavily regulated.
	In a healthy democracy, governing should be uncomfortable. Governments should be subject to real challenge. The Government should not use legislative means to shut down debate or dissent, as this Government are now doing. That is why Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights have opposed the Bill on the grounds of civil liberties. It breaches the international standards of the International Labour Organisation and the European convention on human rights.
	The Bill gives an inadequate transitional period of just three months to re-recruit the 4.9 million current members of trade union political funds, which this Bill would arbitrarily and retrospectively set at zero. It deliberately allows insufficient time for trade unions to change their own rule books to accommodate that sudden, draconian legislative requirement.
	The intrusive new investigatory powers for the certification officer make him the judge, jury and executioner on complaints, which flies in the face of the principles of natural justice.
	The provisions on picketing were described by the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee as “Not fit for purpose”. The very minor concessions, which were made after Opposition pressure in Committee, do not go nearly far enough.
	This Bill just does not fit with modern Britain. It acts as though devolution to our nations and regions never happened, with the Government seeking to ride roughshod over both check-off and facility agreements freely made between employer and employee in the devolved authorities and in English local government. If those agreements work well and facilitate good industrial relations, why do the Government wish to destroy them by central diktat? The obvious conclusion is that this Government want to destroy trade union finances and organisation and to effectively legislate trade unions out of existence.
	Throughout the Bill’s passage, Labour has pushed for the introduction of e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, which are already used for a variety of purposes in both the public and the private sectors, including, of course, to choose the Tory mayoral candidate for London. I can think of no organisations besides trade unions where technological change and progress is not only discouraged by the Government, but actually banned by proscriptive legislation. There are no reasonable grounds for the Government’s continued refusal to countenance that wholly sensible change. Trade unions must be allowed to modernise and bring balloting into the 21st century, and I very much hope that my noble Friends in the other place will pick up on that.
	We know that trade unions have a vital role to play in a modern economy where business, employees and Government work together for the mutual benefit of our country. It is time that the Government treated trade unions as an equal in that partnership and not as the enemy within.
	The Bill is divisive and undermines the basic protections that trade unions provide for people at work. It is poorly drafted, legally unsound and in conflict with international obligations, and it undermines the devolution settlement. It does nothing to tackle the pressing national challenges our public services, businesses and industries alike are facing; instead, it tries to drive a false wedge between Government, industry, employees and the public.
	Stopping this Bill requires a UK-wide and united response. I urge Members on both sides of the House to join Labour in the Division Lobby to oppose this nasty, vindictive Bill in its entirety.

Chris Stephens: Today we have heard, once again, divisive rhetoric against this country’s trade union movement. We have heard from some Government Back Benchers that trade unionists who are on strike get paid by their employer. That will be news to the millions of trade union members in this country. The real difficulty with and objection to some of the rhetoric we hear is the suggestion that trade union members are somehow different from taxpayers and the public. Trade union members are taxpayers and they are members of the general public.
	The Bill infringes human rights and civil liberties, and if unaltered, it can only lead to more work for the courts and, sadly, more blacklisting for trade union members in this country. The Bill attacks the ability of trade unions to organise, as we have seen with the proposals on facility time and check-off. This is not just about party political funding; it is an attack on the trade union movement’s ability to fund general campaigns, such as anti-racist campaigns and campaigns in favour of public services.
	It is quite astonishing that the Government believe that aspects of the Bill do not require a legislative consent motion, either from the Scottish Parliament or from the Welsh Assembly, on public services across the board. I predict that that will come back to bite them.
	The Minister for Skills was very kind in his words to me, so I will reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): he gives the appearance of moderation, but his rhetoric is entirely disingenuous.

David Rutley: It is an honour to speak on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills on his hard work. He has worked tirelessly on this very important Bill, which is vital in terms of accountability and transparency.
	Like many Members of the House, I was fortunate enough last week to meet a delegation from Macclesfield of good, hard-working union members. They are very sincere in their support of their fellow union members.
	They rightly pointed out that unions do a lot of work to support members and others in the workplace. However, not all union leaders share those motives and some strikes can cause major disruption, so the Bill is important. I stress again that its importance is in terms of accountability and transparency. Who should be fearful of those principles in relation to the practices in the Bill?
	The Bill will ensure that union members have the right to better information about any industrial action a union proposes to take. It ensures that union members have the right to be consulted in another ballot, so that saying yes to action in the winter does not necessarily still mean yes the following summer. The union will have to ask members if they want to opt in to political levies, and then ask them again if they want to be opted in some five years later. These are reasonable proposals and reasonable policies.
	This is a profound and timely shift of power in favour of the public and of the grassroots in the union movement—Conservative democracy and accountability in action once again. We Conservatives have a democratic mandate to introduce the reforms. We are accountable to the electorate for following through on our manifesto commitments. Union leaders must now be held to a higher level of accountability when planning action that could lead to serious disruption to important public services.
	It is only right that ballots for industrial action should need to reach certain thresholds of support among union members, particularly when such action relates to public services. It is right that the fear of intimidation at the picket line should be removed, which will protect the public and their services from any excessive zeal by an unrepresentative minority within the union movement. If such people are not unrepresentative, why do they fear the threshold? This is about accountability to union members and to the British public.
	Of course, the hard left has always had a foothold in the Labour party, and now it has the whip hand. That far-left whip hand, Labour’s new leadership, has been busy building up momentum behind its agenda. That is Momentum with a capital M by the way: Momentum for real change—on the Labour Benches, that is—is a movement inspired by militant trade unionists who want to do to the country what they now have the momentum to do in the Labour party.
	I talked earlier about how the shadow Chancellor wants to encourage more militant approaches and no doubt wants to inspire militant trade unionism. Conservative Members have been hearing that, and we have to finish the job of trade union reform that we started in the 1980s and carried on in the 1990s because there are leading Labour Members who saw the industrial strife of the 1970s and 1980s as a dry run for where they want to go next. They will not protect the regular members of trade unions and the public, but Conservative Members will, and that is why I support the Bill.

Jack Dromey: My dad came here as a navvy from County Cork, joined the British Army to fight Hitler and then became a train driver. Like generations before him and generations after him, he wanted to get on.
	The evidence is absolutely clear that those who are in a trade union are more likely to be better paid and to enjoy equal pay, less likely to be unfairly dismissed, bullied or discriminated against, and more likely to work in a safe workplace and to enjoy a decent pension.
	I have worked for 40 years in the trade union movement with good employers, including those in the automotive industry such as Jaguar Land Rover, who praise their trade unions for the transformation of the industry to a high-pay, high-quality, high-productivity culture. I have also fought the bad. My whole experience is that trade unions are a force for good and for liberty.
	Now, the so-called party of working people wants to weaken working people. It is part of a wider agenda that will brook no opposition: first the charities, then the BBC, even the House of Lords and now the trade unions. The Tory party wants a one party, one nation state.
	The great Jack Jones once said that the way for working people to access power was through their union card on the one hand and their right to vote for the Labour party on the other.
	Let me show what is so obnoxious about this Bill. When I was treasurer of the Labour party in 2006, against the background of the secret loans scandal and the Hayden Phillips process, it was put to me, “Jack, if we impose a cap on donations of £5,000, it will bankrupt the Tory party.” I said no to doing that because it would be immoral for one party to abuse its power to bankrupt another party. Would that the Conservative party had the same moral compass now.
	In conclusion, this is a pernicious and iniquitous Bill. It is born out of malice, informed by prejudice and has no place in a democracy. That is why the true party of working people, the Labour party, will vote against it tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 305, Noes 271.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Speaker’s committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Chris Bryant, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Mr Charles Walker and Pete Wishart be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—
	(Dr 
	Thérèse 
	Coffey.)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.
	That the draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 7 September, be approved. —(Kris Hopkins.)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

The EU and the post-2015 Development Agenda

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5902/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: A Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development after 2015; welcomes this document as a contribution to a debate that is central to sustainable development policy; and supports the Government’s approach to the post-2015 development agenda.—(Kris Hopkins.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Funding Formula for Leicestershire Constabulary

Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition on the funding formula for Leicestershire constabulary, which was collected over the past 10 days. Of course, that was prior to the Government’s decision, because of the problems we heard about in the urgent question on Monday, to pause the formula to allow local constabularies to make fresh representations. Happily, that is exactly what the Government decided to do on Monday, so I present the petition in celebration: the results of the petition have already been accepted and there will be a further review.
	I thank the 216 people who signed the petition, which was collected by volunteers in the north Leicester area: Sanjeev Sharma, Baljeet Singh and Pradeep Dullabh. I also thank Councillors Mo Chohan, Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott and Rita Patel for their support.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of Leicester East,
	Declares that current proposals to change Leicestershire’s policing budget through the revision of the funding formula as well as other cuts could jeopardise the safety of thousands of residents; further that this will result in an unacceptable loss of £700,000 from the force’s budget; and further that the proposals will lead to fewer officers keeping Leicester safe and give a green light to criminals.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately review the proposed funding formula for Leicestershire Constabulary.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001553]

HEDGEHOG CONSERVATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins.)

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me an Adjournment debate on hedgehog habitats and the need to protect the species. Before I go any further, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I still retain an interest in a small public relations company that gives advice to developers, although I am not sure they will want to talk to me after this. I thank the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, and especially Henry Johnson, who has spoken to me about the importance of hedgehog conservation.
	An article in The Guardian in July 2013 pointed out that hedgehogs are prickly in character, have a voracious appetite and a passion for gardens, and have a noisy sex life. I leave it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide which of those traits I share. In a BBC wildlife poll, hedgehogs were chosen as the best natural emblem for the British nation, beating the charismatic badger and the sturdy oak. The victory for the ultimate underdog came about with 42% and more than 9,000 votes cast for the hedgehog. I know what it is like to be an underdog, because that is how I felt in the run-up to the last general election, when I placed a bet on myself with Paddy Power at 4:1 against.
	In short, the British people have taken hedgehogs to their hearts. Even though we are a nation of animal lovers and have played a key role in the emergence of the modern conservation movement in the western world, Britain does not have a designated national species, unlike many other countries, including Russia, Australia and South Africa. That is why I am calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to hold a national campaign to identify which animal should be our designated national species. Needless to say, I will be launching a petition after this debate to name the hedgehog as our designated national species.

Jim Shannon: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman set the scene for us, but there are more than 100 priority species across the UK, many of which reside within my constituency. Does he agree we need a strategy for all those species, including the hedgehog?

Oliver Colvile: Yes, I am happy to agree, but I am talking about, and campaigning for, the hedgehog.
	Perhaps the BBC might like to run a competition similar to one to find the greatest Briton, with a series of people arguing the case for their preferred animal over a series of weeks. I would be willing to do the job on behalf of the hedgehog.

Martin Docherty: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hedgehogs are a devolved issue to be decided on by the Scottish Government?

Oliver Colvile: I am told that in the Western Isles, there are no hedgehogs at all.
	My relationship with the hedgehog goes back to my own childhood in suburban Woking, when I was read by my actress mother Beatrix Potter’s “The Tale of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle”—hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that this is not the only Mrs T who has been important in my life. I was therefore deeply shocked to discover that in the last 10 years, hedgehog numbers have declined by about one third nationally. According to the House of Commons Library, the principal reason for this prickly animal’s decline is the loss of habitats. Likely factors in the hedgehog’s demise are the loss of permanent grasslands, larger field sizes, the use of pesticides and herbicides and a reduction in hedgerow quality. I understand that badgers are a natural predator of hedgehogs and that consequently they avoid sites where badgers are present.

Gavin Williamson: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of using our gardens as a vital habitat for hedgehogs? I recently built a hedgehog house in my garden. Sadly, as yet I have no residents in it, but I hope it will encourage diversity and a growth in hedgehog numbers in South Staffordshire.

Oliver Colvile: I will be making a similar point in a moment.
	Hedgehogs seem to thrive in urban and suburban areas, but the move to tidy, sterile gardens—I am sure the garden of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is not sterile—has also contributed to their demise. However, these suburban habitats are broken up by fences and roads, pushing hedgehogs into unsuitably small areas.

Rebecca Pow: Another fascinating fact about hedgehogs, which my hon. Friend might be aware of, is that they run up to 1.2 km a night, but they have to find a mate. Thinking about wildlife gardening, I wonder if he might make a hole in his garden fence so that the hedgehogs can run through to find a mate? This is essential.

Oliver Colvile: My hon. Friend has been reading my speech or has had prior notice of it.
	Hedgehogs need to move a surprising distance to search for food, mates and nesting sites, so we need to make it easier for them to move between gardens, perhaps by making holes in fences. During a visit to Plymouth’s hedgehog rehabilitation and care centre this autumn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), I learned that the way to tackle this problem is to stop habitat loss. I was also rather surprised to learn that we should not leave milk and bread out for hedgehogs. Additionally, slug pellets are a great danger that can be fatally harmful to them.

Julian Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the advent of specific hedgehog conservation areas, such as the one in Elmdon in my Solihull constituency, can play a major part in arresting the alarming decline in the numbers of the great British hedgehog?

Oliver Colvile: I am delighted to hear about the area in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I think it important to continue with the theme of ensuring how we can look after the hedgehog.
	I was also told that elastic bands, which postmen discard when delivering letters, are also detrimental to hedgehog survivals. There is no robust evidence on this point, but it is one of many concerns that have been raised with me about the pitfalls that hedgehogs must dodge.
	Not only do we need hedgehog-friendly gardens, but I also want my hon. Friends and the Government to give local authorities advice on ensuring that hedgehogs do not get caught up in bonfires. Last week, we celebrated bonfire night and I raised my concerns about hedgehogs making nests in the bonfires before they were set alight. One of my hon. Friends suggested that this might be a Catholic plot to ensure that attention was taken away from Guy Fawkes—but I rather dismissed that.
	Although it is not thought that badgers are the principal culprit in the demise of hedgehogs, they cannot be totally blame free. In a major DEFRA study, which assessed the ecological consequences of badger removal during the randomised badger culling trial lasting from 1998 to 2006, it was found that removing badgers from a habitat had a number of consequences for other species. The report said that hedgehogs rarely encountered badgers in rural sites, but were found relatively frequently in amenity areas.
	Population density increased by over 100% over the course of the randomised badger culling trial in amenity sites in proactive cull areas, while declining slightly in no-cull control sites. No similar increases were detected in rural sites. The report also found that there is strong evidence that badger predation restricts hedgehog populations and that amenity areas in villages act as a spatial refuge for hedgehogs.
	In 2011, a further report on the state of British hedgehogs concluded that, while badgers are a natural predator of hedgehogs, where there are good foraging opportunities for worms and beetles, badgers and hedgehogs can coexist. However, when there is no safe refuge, and badgers and hedgehogs compete for these scarce resources, hedgehogs may be in serious trouble.
	A more recent study in 2014 found that in areas of preferred habitat, counts did not change where there was no badger culling. An analysis of the original badger culling experiments, published in April 2014, shows that while at some sites hedgehog numbers did increase, following a reduction in the number of badgers, it was thought that some of the sample sizes might have been too small.
	I must point out that there have been widespread calls for more research into the effects of the badger, and I welcome this. As I explained earlier, badgers are not the sole cause of the decline in the hedgehog population, but I believe that there is a real danger that if more research is not put into the badger cull, hedgehog numbers will continue to decline. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
	There is a pressing need to support hedgehogs in urban areas. It is very important to focus on the barriers created by walls and impermeable garden fences and the consequent fragmentation of the hedgehog population. The House may like to know that I am pressing my fellow neighbours at the Royal Naval hospital in Plymouth to ensure that we can create a hedgehog-friendly community and increase the number of hedgehogs in this part of my inner-city constituency.

Lisa Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am just reading on the British Hedgehog Preservation Society site that Saturday 21 November is hedgehog day, so I wish to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one of the timeliest debates on this issue.

Oliver Colvile: Everybody else seems to have had notice of my speech before I ended up making it.
	The progressive loss of suitable feeding areas through intensive gardening or inappropriate management of amenity grasslands are also major issues about which we can take action. When new garden fences are installed there are “hedgehog-friendly” options, such as a small hole so that hedgehogs do not become trapped in gardens, and I urge people to consider those in future. More than 36,500 hedgehog champions are campaigning to create hedgehog-friendly neighbourhoods. I have now volunteered to be one, and I am the 150th hedgehog champion from Plymouth to sign up to this excellent scheme.
	I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will want to know what you can do. Like me, you can sign up to be a hedgehog champion on the “Hedgehog Street”' website, where you can report sightings of hedgehogs on the “big hedgehog map”. Although it is not a scientific survey, it is an excellent way in which to engage the public, and I challenge as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to sign up to the cause.
	I am delighted to report that Saturday 21 November is the day of the hedgehog, and that hundreds of people are expected to descend on the International Centre, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). I myself will be attempting to set up an all-party parliamentary group for hedgehogs, so that we can advance the cause of those prickly characters. If any Members are interested, I should be delighted if they contacted me on oliver.colvile.mp@parliament.uk. On the same day, the next report reviewing the four main surveys covering hedgehogs in rural and urban areas will be released. It must be remembered that hedgehog numbers are a good indicator of the state of the natural environment, which is why these creatures are so important to the United Kingdom’s ecology.
	I think that there is more to be done, and I have therefore suggested to the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), that it should hold an inquiry into how we can save hedgehogs.
	I hope that I have set out the case for hedgehogs clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that you too will become a hedgehog supporter. Now is the time to increase the public’s awareness of the plight of these plucky characters. I trust that the aforementioned Mrs T would be delighted that someone is taking up this important cause.

Eleanor Laing: I think I had better confirm, lest my customary silence be taken as negative, that I will of course do so.

Rory Stewart: Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thomas Tugendhat: In every happy home is a hedgehog, as the Pashtuns would say. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage our Pashtun community in this country to follow that example.

Rory Stewart: I am very grateful for that Pushtun intervention, but my hon. Friend refers, of course, to the Asian variety of the hedgehog rather than the western hedgehog, which is the subject of our discussion today.
	The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
	I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). I believe that this is the first time that Parliament has discussed hedgehogs since 1566, when the subject was famously raised in relation to the attribution of a bounty of tuppence for the collection of the hedgehog throughout the United Kingdom.
	The hedgehog has undergone an extraordinary evolution. The year 1566 seems very recent, but the hedgehog was around before then. It was around before this Parliament. The hedgehog, and its ancestor, narrowly missed being crushed under the foot of Tyrannosaurus rex. The hedgehog was around long before the human species: it existed 56 million years ago. It tells us a great deal about British civilisation that my hon. Friend has raised the subject, because the hedgehog is a magical creature. It is a creature that appears on cylinder seals in Sumeria, bent backwards on the prows of Egyptian ships. The hedgehog has of course a famous medicinal quality taken by the Romany people for baldness and it represents a symbol of the resurrection found throughout Christian Europe.
	This strange animal was known, of course, in Scotland, Wales and Ireland originally in Gaelic as that demonic creature, that horrid creature, and is the hedgehog celebrated by Shakespeare:
	“Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen…
	Come not near our faerie queen”,
	and famously of course in “Richard III” there is that great moment when Gloucester is referred to as a hedgehog. It tells us something about Britain today; it represents a strange decline in British civilisation from a notion of this magical, mystical, terrifying creature to where it is today, and I refer of course to my own constituent, the famous cleanliness representative of Penrith and The Border, Mrs Tiggy-Winkle.
	I want to be serious for a moment. The hedgehog is of course an important environmental indicator, with its habitat, its ability to occupy 30 hectares of land, and its particular relationship to the hibernaculum, by which I mean the hedgehog’s ability, almost uniquely among animals in the United Kingdom, to go into a state of genuine hibernation. Its heartbeat goes from 240 a minute to only two a minute for six months a year. It has a particular diet—a focus on grubs and beetles. The street hedgehog initiative, which my hon. Friend has brought forward, reminds us that, by cutting holes in the bottom of our hedges, we can create again an opportunity for hedgehogs to move.
	The hedgehog provides a bigger lesson for us in our environment—first, a lesson in scientific humility. The hedgehog has of course been studied for over 2,000 years. The first scientific reference to the hedgehog is in Aristotle; he is picked up again by Isidore of Seville in the 8th century and again by Buffon in the 18th century, and these are reminders of the ways in which we get hedgehogs wrong. Aristotle points out that the hedgehog carries apples on his spine into his nest. Isidore of Seville argues that the hedgehog travels with grapes embedded on his spine. Buffon believes these things might have been food for the winter, but as we know today the hedgehog, hibernating as he does, is not a creature that needs to take food into his nest for the winter.
	Again, our belief in Britain that the five teeth of the hedgehog represent the reaction of the sinful man to God—the five excuses that the sinful man makes to God—is subverted by our understanding that the hedgehog does not have five teeth. Finally, the legislation introduced in this House, to my great despair, in 1566 which led to the bounty of a tuppence on a hedgehog was based on a misunderstanding: the idea that the hedgehog fed on the teats of a recumbent cow in order to feed itself on milk. This led to the death of between of half a million and 2 million hedgehogs between1566 and 1800, a subject John Clare takes forward in a poem of 1805 and which led my own Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, in 1908 to issue a formal notice to farmers encouraging them not to believe that hedgehogs take milk from the teats of a recumbent cow, because of course the hedgehog’s mouth is too small to be able to perform this function.
	But before we mock our ancestors, we must understand this is a lesson for us. The scientific mistakes we made in the past about the hedgehog are mistakes that we, too, may be mocked for in the future. We barely understand this extraordinary creature. We barely understand for example its habit of self-anointing; we will see a hedgehog produce an enormous amount of saliva and throw it over its back. We do not understand why it does that. We do not really understand its habit of aestivation, which is to say the hedgehog which my hon. Friend referred to—the Pushto version of the hedgehog—hibernates in the summer as well as the winter. We do not understand that concept of aestivation.
	For those of us interested in environmental management, the hedgehog also represents the important subject of conflict in habitats. The habitat that suits the hedgehog is liminal land: it is edge land, hedgerows and dry land. The hedgehog is not an animal that flourishes in many of our nature reserves. It does not do well in peatland or in dense, heavy native woodland. The things that prey on the hedgehog are sometimes things that we treasure. My hon. Friend mentioned badgers.

Rebecca Pow: Does the Minister agree that the successful survival of our hedgehog population is a direct reflection of how healthy and sustainable our environment is? It is important that we should look after the environment, because the knock-on effect of that will be that our hedgehog population will be looked after.

Rory Stewart: That is an important point. The hedgehog is a generalist species, and traditionally we have not paid much attention to such species. We have been very good at focusing on specialist species, such as the redshank, which requires a particular kind of wet habitat. The hedgehog is a more challenging species for us to take on board.
	As I was saying, the hedgehog is a good indicator for hedgerow habitat, although it is not much use for peatland or wetland. The hedgehog raises some important environmental questions. One is the question of conflict with the badger. Another is the question of the hedgehog in the western isles, which relates to the issue of the hedgehog’s potential predation on the eggs of the Arctic tern.

Patrick Grady: On the point about the hedgehog in the western isles, we have established that hedgehogs are a devolved matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is not in the Chamber at the moment. Scottish Natural Heritage is doing careful work to humanely remove hedgehogs from the Hebrides, and it would be interesting to hear how the UK Government intend to support that work.

Rory Stewart: This is an important reminder that things that matter enormously to our civilisation, our society and our hearts—such as the hedgehog—have to be in the right place. In New Zealand, hedgehogs are considered an extremely dangerous invasive species that has to be removed for the same reasons that people in Scotland are having to think about controlling them there. It does not matter whether we are talking about badgers, hedgehogs or Arctic terns—it is a question of what place they should occupy.
	Finally—and, I think, more positively—what the hedgehog really represents for us is an incredible symbol of citizen science. The energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has brought to the debate is a great example of British, or perhaps English, eccentricity, and it is on the basis of English eccentricity that our habitat has been preserved. Gilbert White, the great 18th century naturalist, was himself an immense eccentric. It has been preserved thanks to eccentrics such as my hon. Friend and, perhaps most famously of all, Hugh Warwick, the great inspiration behind the British Hedgehog Preservation Society. He has written no fewer than three books on the hedgehog, and he talks very movingly about staring into the eyes of a hedgehog and getting a sense of its wildness from its gaze. These enthusiasts connect the public to nature, sustain our 25-year environment programme and contribute enormously to our scientific understanding of these animals. This is true in relation to bees, to beavers and in particular to Hugh Warwick’s work on hedgehogs. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned national hedgehog day in an earlier intervention.
	Ultimately, we need to understand that the hedgehog is a very prickly issue. The reason for that is that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised the question of adopting the hedgehog as our national symbol. Some hon. Members will remember that the hedgehog was used by Saatchi & Saatchi in an advertising campaign for the Conservative party in 1992 general election. We should therefore pay tribute to the hedgehog’s direct contribution to our election victory in that year. But I would like to challenge my hon. Friend’s assertion that the hedgehog should become our national symbol. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I ask those on both sides of this House, because this question concerns not only one party, but all of us: do we want to have as our national symbol an animal which when confronted with danger rolls over into a little ball and puts its spikes up? Do we want to have as our national symbol an animal that sleeps for six months of the year? Or would we rather return to the animal that is already our national symbol? I refer, of course, to the lion, which is majestic, courageous and proud.
	If I may finish with a little testimony to my hon. Friend and to those innocent creatures which are hedgehogs, perhaps I can reach back to them not as a symbol for our nation but as a symbol of innocence to Thomas Hardy. He says:
	“When the hedgehog travels furtively over the lawn,
	One may say, ‘He strove that such innocent creatures should come to no harm,
	But he could do little for them; and now he is gone.’
	If, when hearing that I have been stilled at last, they stand at the door,
	Watching the full-starred heavens that winter sees,
	Will this thought rise on those who will meet my face no more,
	‘He was one who had an eye for such mysteries’?

Eleanor Laing: I paused because I wanted to encourage some more positive noises for the Minister, who has just made one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.